[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec to WG status?
Dmitri et al,
Actually, I think this is better worded as
"... 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 industry]."
since the industry at large, and not just the WG, is the user of
any solution emerging from an IETF WG.
-Vishal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vishal Sharma [mailto:v.sharma@ieee.org]
> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 5:38 PM
> To: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
> Cc: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec to WG status?
>
>
> 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
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >