Re: Moving forward with the CCAMP charter

[Tomohiro Otani <otani@kddilabs.jp>]

Hi Adrian,

Being related with your text and JP's messages, I would ask you
to touch upon the draft: draft-otani-ccamp-interas-gmpls-te-03.txt.
Is this related with a kind of baseline for (1) Analysis of inter-domain
issues ?

So far, there is a proposed draft of GMPLS inter-domain signaling
as we discussed in Paris, but there is no draft of GMPLS inter-domain
routing definition whether it is with TE extension or not.
(your framework draft covers these points)

Regards,

tomo




JP Vasseur wrote:

>Hi Adrian,
>
>On Aug 16, 2005, at 2:53 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>
>>> (1) Analysis of inter-domain issues for disjoint and protected paths
>>>        - Informational I-D to close off the topic and devolve to PCE
>>>        * first version of WG draft
>>>        * submit for IESG review
>>>
>>> Could you briefly elaborate on this item ?
>>>
>>
>> I think we have the need for an informational I-D that is a bit  
>> like the
>> existing inter-domain framework I-D, but that examines the more  
>> complex
>> question of the provisioning of disjoint and protection paths across
>> domain boundaries. I am aware that there a lot of ideas out there  
>> and that
>> there has been a lot of research. I think we need to capture an  
>> overview.
>>
>
>ok fair enough ... I'll be happy to provide my input on the topic (as  
>you can imagine ;-))
>
>> It is my (personal - not WG chair) opinion that this I-D will point  
>> firmly
>> at the PCE WG. But just as for single paths we discovered that  
>> there are
>> some (limited) scenarios for single paths where signaling is  
>> suitable on
>> its own, we may find some solutions for diverse and protected paths.
>>
>>
>>> (2) May be in the same bucket as draft-ali-ccamp-mpls-graceful-
>>> shutdown, you may want to add draft-leroux-ccamp-ctrl-
>>> saturation-01.txt ?
>>>
>>
>> Yes. I am inclined to add a work item for "control plane robustness".
>>
>
>Thanks.
>
>JP.
>
>> Adrian
>>
>
>
>  
>