Re: no more milestones?

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

Hi Ichiro,

In the agenda (now on-line at http://www.olddog.co.uk/63/ccamp.htm) you'll
see that we have set aside just over 30 minutes to discuss the work plan
for CCAMP.

The chairs will prepare some material based on the discussions last
November and the new work that has come forward since then. We will post
this material in advance of the meeting to give people a chance to think
and talk about it.

Hopefully, in the meeting or before, we can discover the process we should
follow and go on to clarify what the working group should be working on
for the next 12 months or so.

Thanks,
Adrian

> I agree that base signalling and routing GMPLS protocols need to be
> worked out, and at the same time I would like to see GMPLS applications
> in operational networks.
>
> I remember about the vote on specific items (to-be-rechartered items)
which
> included basic signalling and routing aspects as well as some extended
> applications.
> At that time, I felt we had a long and good discussion already about
what
> would be on the revised charter and it was very close to decide.
>
> Now, though (because?) I don't know what process is done and further
needed
> beyond what we already went through and saw, I appreciate if we can see
new
> milestones reflecting the vote and recent discussions so that we can
determine in
> Paris hopefully without, but with some more discussion if needed.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ichiro Inoue
>
>  >  >> 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
>  >
>
>
>
>
>
>