Re: Moving forward with the CCAMP charter

[Kenji Kumaki <ke-kumaki@kddi.com>]

Hi Adrian,

I have some comments on new items.

>MPLS-GMPLS interworking requirements and solutions
> * first version of WG draft
>   - material from draft-oki-ccamp-gmpls-ip-interworking-06.txt
> * submit for IESG review

draft-kumaki-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interworking-01.txt includes MPLS/GMPLS
interworking requirements and soultions.
So I think this draft should be put in the first version of WG draft.

>MPLS to GMPLS migration strategies
> * Informational I-D first version of WG draft
>   - based on draft-oki-ccamp-gmpls-ip-interworking-06.txt
>   - material from draft-ali-ccamp-gmpls-deployment-augmented-model-00.txt
> * submit Informational I-D for IESG review

Zafar's draft is merged into draft-kumaki-ccamp-mpls-gmpls-interworking-01.txt.
So I think you should replace Zafar's to mine.

Thanks,
Kenji

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:28:11 +0100
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Please find attached a file that contains:
> 
> - a set of proposed *draft* milestones
> - a discussion of why there are so many milestones
> - a high-level explanation of the work items.
> 
> Note that this looks like a lot of milestones, but please read the text on this issue in the attached file. The bottom line is that this is a product of micro management where I have tried to identify all of the I-Ds that we might produce to cover the referenced work, and where I have placed two (sometimes three) milestones for each I-D.
> 
> This micro-management may be over the top, and represents a full pendulum swing from the previous style of CCAMP milestones, but in the light of the hiatus of the last 12 months, i think this may be beneficial and might achieve rapid forwards movement.
> 
> I would welcome your (constructive!) comments.
> 
> Notes:
> - Why isn't my I-D also cited as input material?
>   No insult intended. The current list is simply there to
>   show the ADs that work is already in progress. All I-Ds
>   will be used as input.      
> - Why isn't my pet topic included?
>   Are you sure it is not there between the lines? This 
>   list of milestones isn't completely proscriptive.
>   
> The objective is to have the WG agreed on the milestones that it wants to commit to by the end of August.
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian

-- 
Kenji Kumaki <ke-kumaki@kddi.com>