neil - to be perfectly clear -
during last round of discussion some individuals started speaking using authoritative and impersonal arguments such as "Ethernet belongs to another SDO i.e. the IEEE"
the DT and most people discussing this thread are perfectly aware of this (see section 7.1) and all what it implies; now, such element may be (potentially) interfering in the present discussion but this is simply a fact for which the CCAMP WG (iff a consensus is found) has to cope with; the problem statement document has tried to be as explicit as possible with that respect; this section 7.1 says that IEEE will be consulted and its feedback will be considered iff CCAMP finds enough interest in starting a working item on GMPLS (IP) control plane for Ethernet (based on the proposed scenarios) so as to start working on the requirements (listed in this document) as part of the CCAMP WG effort * but we are not that far yet *
however, this argument can not be used as the cornerstone in the present stage of decision process which is simply whether CCAMP WG wants to work or not on a GMPLS (IP) control plane for Ethernet; so, it is inappropriate to argue from the CCAMP perspective by making use of the potential reaction(s) of the IEEE, in particular, knowing there is no intention to initiate a work item on Ethernet data plane
<neil.2.harrison@bt.com>
Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
07/22/2005 21:11
To: Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL, <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
bcc:
Subject: RE: Frameformat in a l2cs gmpls rnvironment.
Dimitri,
What do you mean by 'interferring elements'.....this sounds like some 'behind closed doors sect' at work. I thought Adrian's post was (as usual) plain/clear as to intent.
regards, Neil
-----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