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

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

Vishal,

As to fit&charter: This work extends the path setup portion of common control plane protocol defined by the WG, namely GMPLS-RSVP. Additionally this work matches the work item, note asterisks "Define a protocol that can determine the actual route and **other properties** of paths set up by CCAMP signaling protocols..." You might also want to check out Hiro Ishimatsu's comment from last November on this topic on the list.

As to the other issues: In addition to Dimitri's references, the document already states:

   Some operators may consider alarm information as sensitive.  To
   support environments where this is the case, implementations SHOULD
   allow the user to disable the generation of ALARM_SPEC objects.

also:

   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.

What additional clarifications do you think are need in the text?

Lou

At 03:45 PM 3/6/2004 -0500, Vishal Sharma wrote:

Folks,

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. 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.

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.

-Vishal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [<mailto: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>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm 

> -spec-01.txt
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>