RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]

hi richard, all, - see in-line

>> 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.
>
> Yes. Though I would like the authors to mention GMPLS and drop the focus
on
> MPLS since they say in the abstract that this applies to "packet and
> non-packet TE LSPs".

agree, i don't know if this has already being pointed out but the statement
could even become somehow confusing to the audience, so it requires to
explicitly state [RFC 3209] and [RFC 3473] for packet LSPs (as GMPLS
support by definition PSC LSPs)

now concerning non-PSC LSPs, there is also a point to be addressed that in
order to achieve non-disruptive re-optimization using MBB one would require
double counting as a parallel non-PSC LSP would be required (traffic is
then send over both LSP before tearing the old one)

>> 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.
>
> Not sure. Adrian mentioned that this would possibly identify items of
work
> for ITU and IETF. What is the thinking of the authors about the draft
after
> the protocol modifications are finished?
>
> If the expected outcome is an alignment of the IETF and ITU views on LMP,
> then the draft would have served its purpose and would not need
publication > as Informational.

your question is sensible, the reason is that in order to exchange views we
need first to agree 1) that we want to work on it then 2) that we are in
agreement about these views (you will also find part of the response to
your in section 6.4) and finally 3) that we are in agreement on how to
progress the work

[snip]