Re: no more milestones?

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]

hi adrian,

much thanks for your reply - just to clarify, in the below when you state:

"If, on the other hand, we are not going to add this stuff to the charter,
it would be very important for us to be clear about this so that the people
working in these areas know that they must take their work to another WG or
BOF."

when you state "... to another WG" do you mean an existing WG, and in such
a case do you have any specific WG in mind ? any clarification much
appreciated

thanks,
- dimitri.

---


Hi Dimitri,

> > I would like to see:
> > - a refinement of the charter to focus the next work items
> > - a year's worth of milestones to ensure we stay focused.
> >
> > On the other hand, we should aim to close down CCAMP and move the work
to
> > other or new working groups.
>
> coupling both sentences does it mean in your view
>
> 1) define several short-term milestones for refining topics that have
been
> already initiated and requires further well scoped attention
>
> 2) (brand) new topics should target new working groups - as already
> initiated with L1VPN for inst. - or existing working groups
>
> nevertheless, i do not see why this automatically means CCAMP can not
> remain the focal point concerning *base* GMPLS signaling and routing
> protocols

To answer your question: yes, I would like to see both. We need some
short-term milestones to guide and refine our work on existing topics. For
example, to complete the inter-domain work, possibly including issues of
protection and restoration.

But there are also some topics that are broadly covered by the CCAMP
scope, where we would benefit greatly by having a specific description on
the charter, and detailed milestones. I am thinking about L2SC, MRN,
MPLS/GMPLS interworking as discussed on the mailing list last November.
While we could sort of take on these things under the vague scope of the
current charter, I would prefer for us to be open, clear and focused.

And this covers your last point. I, too, don't see why CCAMP should not
remain the focal point for GMPLS signaling and routing protocols. However,
to do so in an efficient and proper manner, we should add the appropriate
milestones to the charter. If, on the other hand, we are not going to add
this stuff to the charter, it would be very important for us to be clear
about this so that the people working in these areas know that they must
take their work to another WG or BOF.

Thanks,
Adrian