RE: draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec to WG status?

["Vishal Sharma" <v.sharma@ieee.org>]

Dmitri et al,

An important phrase missing from the definition
below is "in the charter" (also emphasized in Adrian's recent
clarifiction in another email). Thus,

"... WG i-d status does not mean RFC status, it means it is
a topic that [is in the charter] _and_ on which the WG is
intersted to actively work on, starting from a reasonable
basis towards an acceptable and interoperable solution
for the WG."

-Vishal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
> [mailto:Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]
> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 4:11 PM
> To: Vishal Sharma
> Cc: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec to WG status?
>
>
> all, i don't know where the end of the sentence has gone
> but read the following "wg i-d status doesn't mean rfc
> status, it means this is a topic on which the working
> group is interested to actively work on starting from a
> reasonable basis towards an acceptable and interoperable
> solution for the wg."
>
> note that all the words "reasonable" and "acceptable"
> are imho to be gauged on a case by case basis depending
> on the topic itself
>
> thanks,
> - dimitri.
>
> Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be wrote:
>
> > hi vishal,
> >
> >> It would be useful for the draft to state how it fits into the CCAMP
> >> WG, and how it relates to the charter.
> >>
> >> One of my concerns is that exposing alarm information is something
> >> that the providers may _not_ want.
> >
> >
> > for your information, the document explicitly mentions
> >
> > "[...] The support of this functionality is optional.
> >
> > The communication of alarms within GMPLS does not imply any
> > modification in behavior of processing of alarms, or for the
> > communication of alarms outside of GMPLS."
> >
> > i think this concern has been addressed but you may want to
> > be a bit more specific on *your* expectation(s) so that the
> > authors may complete this section
> >
> >> Moreover, there are already likely
> >> to be other methods by which a provider coordinates alarm information
> >> through their network (and layers), without having it be communicated
> >> explicitly via signaling.
> >
> >
> > i don't think this document puts this under questioning
> > - see also above
> >
> >> Some clarification on these points would be useful. Until such time,
> >> I would prefer to hold off on it being brought under the wing
> of the WG.
> >
> >
> > i think there is a more broader issue here, wg i-d status
> > doesn't mean rfc status, it means this is a topic on which
> > the working group is interested to actively work on
> >
> > thanks,
> > - dimitri.
> >
> >> -Vishal
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
> >>> Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> >>> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 4:21 AM
> >>> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> >>> Subject: draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec to WG status?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In Seoul we ran out of time before we could discuss this draft.
> >>>
> >>> However, the draft is pretty stable, and it is the opinion of the
> >>> authors that this should
> >>> be brought under the wing of the WG.
> >>>
> >>> Can you please send your opinions to the list or to the chairs direct.
> >>>
> >>> Silence (as usual) will be interpreted as you saying nothing.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm
> >>> -spec-01.txt
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Adrian
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >