Re: New charter

["Igor Bryskin" <ibryskin@movaz.com>]

Four most important:
1), 3), 5) and 8)

Next two:
2) and 7)

Igor

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kireeti Kompella" <kireeti@juniper.net>
To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 1:22 AM
Subject: New charter


> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> 
> > If you have suggested charter updates, please send them to Adrian
> > and me.
> 
> Thanks all for your input.  I have the following items; for each,
> please say "Yes" (should be added to CCAMP charter), "No" (should not
> be added) or "-" (don't care).  I'll remind you once again that not
> all items will make it onto the new charter.
> 
> Please keep this subject line (simply reply to this mail).  The
> deadline is Friday Dec 3, 17:00 PST.
> 
> 1) MPLS-GMPLS migration
> 2) GMPLS interoperability issues
> 3a) should the IETF take on L1VPNs?
> 3b) if yes to 3a, should this be done in CCAMP?
> 4) Waveband switching
> 5) Control plane work
> 6) Decoder ring for addresses
> 7) Deployment considerations for GMPLS
> 8) PCE requirements
> 9) QoS control
> 
> A rough idea of what each of the above entails follows.
> 
> 1) MPLS-GMPLS migration
> implementation shift from "MPLS" objects to "GMPLS" objects
> BCP on deployment migration for the same
> 
> 2) GMPLS interoperability issues
> what addresses to use where
> nits/clarifications of the specs
> guidelines for path computation & constraints
> survay
> 
> 3) L1VPN work items
> identify protocol extensions needed
> state what can already be done with what we have
> do the actual protocol work for requirements that are not met
> liaisons to SG13 as needed
> 
> 5) Control plane work
> resiliency
> graceful shutdown
> 
> 6) Decoder ring for addresses
> for each address field, identify its nature and ITU equivalent
> (may overlap with part of (2))
> 
> 
> 4, 7-9 are obvious or have been elaborated on the mailing list.
> 
> Kireeti.
> -------
> 
> PS: The topic of GTTP has carefully been avoided.  More later.
>