[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: New charter



In no particular order:

1) MPLS-GMPLS migration
2) GMPLS interoperability issues & 6) Decoder ring for addresses
3a) should the IETF take on L1VPNs? Yes
3b) if yes to 3a, should this be done in CCAMP? Yes
8) PCE requirements
--
Thanks,
Richard.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kireeti Kompella
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 10:22 PM
> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> 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.
> 
>