Re: no more milestones?

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Hi Neil and Tom,

>> There are for instance, ops/management-related items
>> for "base" CCAMP items that need to be worked on.  The question
>> for me is why can't we continue to work on these?  I thought
>> these things were automatic chartered items, and thus should
>> be ongoing work items.
>
>You are right Tom to raise the point about the importance of
>network management here.  When we are dealing with large BW
>granularity co-cs mode technologies then virtually all the
>really important issues are concerned with the efficacy of the
>management-plane solution....the control-plane plays a minor
>support role (for a whole raft of technical/commercial/operational
>reasons). This is of course quite the opposite to a cl-ps layer
>network like IP.  We look to TMF for expertise here in developing
>the required management information models which are based on
>functional architecture.

I think you are right, Neil, that we would largely look outside the IETF
for management plane solutions.

What Tom is referring to, of course, is the management aspects necessary
as part of the control plane solutions. Aspects such as MIB modules, PIBs,
OAM etc.

I'm sure that I don't have to remind you that GMPLS is a control plane
technology not a data plane technology. The applicability of GMPLS is to
any co data plane technology and therefore it embraces both co-cs and
co-ps.

In answer to Tom's question, we are not prohibited from working on these
things, but we are rather adrift without any milestones. i would certainly
say that the right place to bring drafts for discussion is the CCAMP list.

However, before committing the WG to any specific drafts the chairs need
to be guided by an up-to-date charter with real milestones. I do hope that
the discussions in Paris will lead to these so that we can get on with the
work that everyone is so keen to do.

Cheers,
Adrian