[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: WG doc. status/charter: [Was: draft-berger-ccamp-gmpls-alarm-spec to WG status?]
Dimitri,
Thanks for the response.
Although the issue of what it takes for a document to become
a WG document was not really reaised in my original email, it
is good to have had some explanations about it.
With regards to the charter, as I already mentioned in my
original email, it is important for the WG to be clear on
what current charter item each specific document/work is trying to
address or solve, if any.
I think the Chairs have repeatedly made this clear over the
past several months, and I see value in that.
Also, the process of adding any work to the charter is a broader
undertaking. From the statement of the Chairs and ADs at Seoul, this
is something the WG is planning to undertake at some point, once
our current plate is cleared. And, it is a rather formal process
requiring approval from the ADs etc., so it is not a matter of
just adding an item "more explicitly" in the charter.
Whether or not this needs to be added to the charter should be addressed
closer to when the charter is up for revision, hopefully in a couple
of months.
-Vishal
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 9:46 PM
> To: Vishal Sharma
> Cc: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >
> >
>