Re: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status

[dimitri papadimitriou <dpapadimitriou@psg.com>]

zafar,

the point has been already asked during the meeting, to summarize, the 
basic idea:

- is to have a "decoder ring" for understanding ITU work and IETF work
  (-> for publication as informational RFC only)

- is NOT to define anything in this document as the intention is first
  to understand the two groups work efforts and then do a series of
  liaisons to determine/assess if any additional work is needed

hope this clarifies,

thanks,
- dimitri.

---
zafar ali wrote:

> "yes" to (1), (3) and (4), 
>
> Conditional "yes" to draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-transport-lmp-02.txt, depending
> on the answer to the following: 
>
> Does Author plan to address link management solution space between ASON and
> GMPLS in the same document? I would prefer that and in which case I think
> adaptation of this document as a WG document to be deferred to a later
> point.   
>
> Thanks
>
> Regards... Zafar
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 
> > [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:52 AM
> > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Cc: 'Kireeti Kompella'; Tove Madsen
> > Subject: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > In San Diego we had four drafts for immediate consideration as 
> > working group drafts. (There were a few other drafts that 
> > needed a little attention first, but will come up for 
> > consideration in the near future.)
> >
> > Please send your comments to the list or to the chairs. A 
> > brief "yes" or "no" will suffice, but a reason with any "no" 
> > would be helpful.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Adrian
> >
> >
> > 1. Loose Path Re-optimization 
> > draft-vasseur-ccamp-loose-path-reopt-02.txt
> > This draft is stable and has an implementation.
> > The work is predominantly pertinent to inter-domain signaling, 
> > but could also be used within a domain. The meeting in San 
> > Diego reported relatively few as having read the draft, but no 
> > objection to it becoming a WG draft.
> >
> > 2. A Transport Network View of LMP 
> > draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-transport-lmp-02.txt
> > There has been a bit of off-list discussion about this draft 
> > in which it has become clear that there are definite 
> > differences between the ASON and CCAMP uses and views of LMP. 
> > This is precisely what the draft is intended to expose. That 
> > is, the draft is not intended to unify the views of LMP, but 
> > rather to represent the two views within a single document so 
> > as to highlight the differences. In San Diego, no-one raised 
> > objections to this being a WG draft.
> >
> > 3. Graceful restart
> > draft-aruns-ccamp-rsvp-restart-ext-01.txt
> > This draft represents a merger of two previous drafts and was 
> > created at the specific request of the WG in Seoul. There is 
> > some more editorial work to be done on the draft, but the main 
> > technical content appears to be stable. In San Diego there was 
> > some support and no opposition to this becoming a WG draft.
> >
> > 4. Inter-domain Framework 
> > draft-farrel-ccamp-inter-domain-framework-01.txt
> > ** I am principal editor. Please take any issues with this to 
> > Kireeti ** This draft provides a framework for the 
> > multi-domain solutions work that the WG is chartered to 
> > address. In San Diego there were some questions about whether 
> > the draft should be extended to cover other, more complex, 
> > inter-domain functions. There was no conclusion about whether 
> > this should be done before or after becoming a WG draft (if it 
> > should be done at all).
>
>
>
>
> .