RE: LMP transport [Was: Re: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status]

["zafar ali" <zali@cisco.com>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 
>[mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
>Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 1:13 PM
>To: zafar ali; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: LMP transport [Was: Re: Soliciting comments on moving 
>drafts to WG status]
>
>
>> 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.
>
>Hi Zafar,
>
>I'm not quite clear what you mean by "address link management 
>solution space". Do you mean a comparison of the ways that LMP 
>is used and any extensions that may have been made to the 
>protocol? Or do you mean an analysis of what needs to be 
>"fixed" and the appropriate new extensions to the protocol?
>

Both, in that order. But as I mentioned I am ok on however Authors would
like to position this ID. 

>If the latter, I think a question that led in this direction 
>was asked in SD.
>
>Kireeti's response was to the effect that we have to do the 
>analysis first, identifying the "secret decoder ring", and 
>showing the differences between the ITU and IETF views. Then 
>we would start a series of liaisons to SG15 to figure out what 
>needs to be fixed and by whom. Finally, work could begin on 
>protocol modifications.
>
>This document is targeted at the first step only.
>
>OTOH, if you meant the first option (i.e. a comparison of how 
>the protocol is used and what extensions have already been 
>made), that seems to me to be valuable in this document.
>
>What do the authors say?
>
>Cheers,
>Adrian
>
>