[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

vishal, well, this is why the wg expects as much
opinion/voices as possible

this said, would you be more specific about yours
(i.e. when you are questioning the use/applicability
of this method) such that the authors can address
it

thanks,
- dimitri.

ps: concerning the charter fitting imho either it
is considered as part of the cp mechanisms the wg
is expected to deliver (i.e. this could have been
part of RFC 3473) or it is the right time to add it
more explicitly in the charter (if so desired)

Vishal Sharma wrote:

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