Re: Draft agenda for Paris

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]

hi adrian, kireeti,

thanks for posting this agenda, this said, two important issues are imho
creating increasing concern in this WG:

1. CCAMP WG backlog -> if one considers the current size of the WG I-Ds
still under discussion, it has reached more than a reasonable size now
since roughly 2/3 (25 over 36, if my count is correct) of the listed WG I-D
documents are pending in RFC Editor queue, under reviews, etc. - the
important issue is that one of the argument commonly used is "GMPLS beside
signaling is still at the draft level" e.g. GMPLS UNI and other routing
docs (meaning not stable, even if this not the case) but this is a REAL
argument playing against GMPLS development and deployment => so, if an
in-depth effort is not triggered this situation is going to persist for a
long time, i would suggest we put this real issue over the next CCAMP
meeting boiler plate

2. CCAMP WG recharter -> we are discussing this "re-charter" since quite
some time now and there are no stated milestones beside closing items we
have initiated since then (or introduce here and there some informational
document trying to clarify achievements). As illustrative examples, pending
items such as I/W and MRN (and derivates), are impacted by this delayed
process:

-> for I/W: there is a need for a DT-like approach since there are several
I-Ds popping up and there is no real common WG vision, a 3-step approach
(10 page framework/problem statement - solution/ mechanism - and then
applicability) would be more than advisabe here as there is a need to clean
up the orientations and come with a real focused stepwise process; with the
current situation we are missing the increasing demand with confusing
vision on migration mechanisms and this is also playing against GMPLS
deployment

-> for MRN and derivates: the real problem is the scope, as long as the
scope is left open - and this is a WG responsibility - people have the
tendancy to consider it as a moving target instead of stabilizing it and so
at the end delaying instead of achieving stepwise progress that the
industry requires

the major resulting issue here (if this can not be addressed rapidly) will
soon become "if the CCAMP WG is not willing to open its charter and address
real community concerns what is the longer term role of this WG ?" and i am
afraid to say here that this is going to leave us with two major options
either split effort in smaller scoped WGs or do like with SIP and split
into a base WG and an investigation WG.


so, in brief, i would like to ask you and Kireeti, to seriously consider
these issues and let us know how this inconfortable situation can be
tackled and what are the actions to undertake in order to make it evolving
rapidly


thanks,
- dimitri.