RE: New charter

["Zafar Ali" <zali@cisco.com>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 
>[mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kireeti Kompella
>Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 11:21 AM
>To: Loa Andersson
>Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: Re: New charter
>
>
>On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Loa Andersson wrote:
>
>> not entirely happy to let the IESG do the pruning,
>
>Okay, Loa -- you are right.
>
>All: instead of Yes/No, can you pick the four most important 
>items from your point of view?  Thanks!
>
>(To those who already replied, sorry to make you do this again!)
>

Hi Kireeti, 

My pick for the four items is (in this order),

- PCE requirements
- GMPLS interoperability issues (incl. MPLS-GMPLS migration), as "GMPLS
interoperability issues" and "MPLS-GMPLS migration" are overlapping in
nature. 
- Control plane work
- L1VPN

N.b. Items (in this order)... waveband switching, QoS control and Decoder
ring for addresses are lowest priority (don't care) for me.  

Thanks

Regards... Zafar 

><snip>
>>
>>1) MPLS-GMPLS migration
>
>Yes, .... You may like to rename it as from name it appears 
>that there is a lot of overlap of this with "7) Deployment 
>considerations for GMPLS". 
>

Important, 

>>2) GMPLS interoperability issues
>
>Yes, 

Very important, 

>
>>3a) should the IETF take on L1VPNs?
>
>Yes, 

Important, 

>
>>3b) if yes to 3a, should this be done in CCAMP?
>
>Yes, 

Important, 

>
>>4) Waveband switching

Don't care, 

>>5) Control plane work
>
>Yes, but the name is too board, may like to rename it, e.g., 
>Control plane resiliency and GS. 
>

Very Important. 

>>6) Decoder ring for addresses

Don't care, 

>>7) Deployment considerations for GMPLS
>
>Yes, 

Important, 

>
>>8) PCE requirements
>
>Yes, 

Very important, 

>
>>9) QoS control

Don't care, 

<snip>