RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status

["Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com>]

Hi Richard

Inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Richard Rabbat
> Subject: RE: Soliciting comments on moving drafts to WG status
> 
> 
> Hi Dimitri, inline...
> 
> > 
> > hi richard, all, - see in-line
> > 
<snip> 
> > >> 2. A Transport Network View of LMP
> > > 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
> > 
> I support making it a WG draft, at least to be able to 
> initiate liaisons with SG15. 
> I'm wondering though what the authors would like the final 
> outcome to be. If all issues are resolved, then in my opinion 
> this draft should be made to expire eventually. Otherwise, 
> documenting the areas of divergence as Informational would be 
> more than appropriate.

Generally I agree. The draft has evolved from being a description of ITU
discovery to a parrallel description of LMP and ITU discovery terms. So the
final outcome is evolving. I have to discuss with other authors for next
steps and this is why I would defer your final view question.  

Regards,
Don