-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Sent: 22 July 2005 16:51
To: Adrian Farrel
Cc: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Frameformat in a l2cs gmpls rnvironment.adrian - ok much thanks for the clarification -
i wanted to be sure that the working group consensus is going to be the element of decision for putting this item in the working list - and we won't have other interfering elements in the decision process -
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
07/22/2005 16:08
Please respond to "Adrian Farrel"
To: Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
bcc:
Subject: Re: Frameformat in a l2cs gmpls rnvironment.Dimitri,
> what do you EXACTLY mean with the following sentence
>
> "This question is one we must come to as soon as we are confident that
the
> requirements need to be addressed at all."
>
> please clarify - btw who is "we" in this context ?
"We" means "the CCAMP working group"
> this sentence reads to me as "CCAMP has not yet committed to work on
this
> topic" is my reading correct ? or do you mean something else with this ?
Your reading is exactly correct as stated.
I refer you to your email to the list on 19th July. You asked...
> - if yes, is the interest in GMPLS for Ethernet in-/out-side the
> CCAMP WG community strong enough to consider the corr. GMPLS
> signaling and routing requirements (second part of the document)
> as part of the CCAMP WG effort ?
Thus, the purpose of the I-D was to crystalize the authors' thoughts on
GMPLS control of Ethernet switching and to initiate discussion on whether
the proposed deployment models are realistic and desirable. Following a
positive answer and assuming support (by CCAMP) for the doing the work (in
CCAMP) all that remains is to add the work to the charter (see previous
charter discussions) and get on with it.
Thanks,
Adrian