[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: WG Review: Recharter of Common Control and Measurement Plane (ccamp)
Bert,
I think the remark you point out is a good "catch-all" for these
types of things and should remain, but I suggested the rewording
for a couple of reasons:
- The original sentence wording is clumsy and could be misunderstood:
"Identify requirements for signaling and routing for ASON not currently met ..."
When I see a statement like "Identify requirements for ...", I tend
to think of identifying new requirements, and if it is a new requirement,
of course it is not currently met, but when I get to the end of the
sentence, I understand that what must have really been meant by the
beginning of the sentence must have been:
"Identify WHICH requirements for signaling and routing for ASON ARE not
currently met". I think the addition of the words WHICH and ARE are
the minimum to make sure that the sentence is well constructed and not
misunderstood.
The reason I thought that mention of ITU-T explicitly in this bullet point
is that ASON requirements come from ITU-T - after all, we are talking
about (not necessarily IP) transport networks, and by making sure that
any such work is always joint with ITU-T, we can avoid the famous
question "What does this have to do with IP?"
Regards,
Steve
On 9/30/2003 3:51 PM, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> Ooops pressed send to quickly on previous email
>
> Steve, do you not think this is covered by:
>
>> In doing this work, the WG will work closely with at least the following
>> other WGs: TEWG, MPLS, ISIS, OSPF. The WG will also cooperate with
>> ITU-T.
>>
>
> The idea is that the WG will cooperate with ITU-T on ALL items
> that warrant/need such coopration and which would improve the
> outcome.
>
> Thanks,
> Bert
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Stephen J Trowbridge [mailto:sjtrowbridge@lucent.com]
>>Sent: dinsdag 30 september 2003 23:36
>>To: iesg@ietf.org
>>Cc: Ronald Bonica; Kireeti Kompella; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>>Subject: Re: WG Review: Recharter of Common Control and Measurement
>>Plane (ccamp)
>>
>>
>>All,
>>I suggest rewording the bullet point:
>>"- Identify requirements for signaling and routing for ASON
>>not currently
>> met; based on these, define mechanisms to address
>>these requirements."
>>
>>to read:
>>"- Work with ITU-T to identify which ASON signaling and
>>routing requirements are
>> not met by existing protocol specifications. Based
>>upon results of this
>>assessment, define mechanisms to address identified gaps."
>>
>>I think this more accurately reflects the intent.
>>Regards,
>>Steve
>>
>>On 9/24/2003 1:29 PM, The IESG wrote:
>>
>>>A modified charter has been submitted for the Common
>>
>>Control and Measurement Plane (ccamp)
>>
>>>Working Group in the Routing Area of the IETF. The IESG has
>>
>>not made any determination as yet.
>>
>>>The following description was submitted, and is provided
>>
>>for informational purposes only.
>>
>>>Please send your comments to the IESG mailing
>>
>>(iesg@ietf.org) by September 30.
>>
>>> Common Control and Measurement Plane (ccamp)
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Current Status: Active Working Group
>>>
>>> Chair(s):
>>> Ronald Bonica <ronald.p.bonica@mci.com>
>>> Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
>>>
>>> Routing Area Director(s):
>>> Bill Fenner <fenner@research.att.com>
>>> Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>
>>>
>>> Routing Area Advisor:
>>> Alex Zinin <zinin@psg.com>
>>>
>>> Mailing Lists:
>>> General Discussion: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>>> To Subscribe: majordomo@ops.ietf.org
>>> In Body: subscribe ccamp
>>> Archive: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/ccamp
>>>
>>> Description of Working Group:
>>>
>>> Organizational Overview
>>>
>>> The CCAMP working group coordinates the work within the
>>
>>IETF defining
>>
>>> a common control plane and a separate common measurement
>>
>>plane for
>>
>>> physical path and core tunneling technologies of
>>
>>Internet and telecom
>>
>>> service providers (ISPs and SPs), e.g. O-O and O-E-O optical
>>> switches, ATM and Frame Relay switches, MPLS, GRE, in cooperation
>>> with the MPLS WG. In this context, measurement refers to the
>>> acquisition and distribution of attributes relevant to
>>
>>the setting up
>>
>>> of tunnels and paths.
>>>
>>> CCAMP WG work scope includes:
>>>
>>> - Definition of protocol-independent metrics and parameters
>>> (measurement attributes) for describing links and
>>
>>paths that are
>>
>>> required for routing and signaling. These will be
>>
>>developed in
>>
>>> conjunction with requests and requirements from
>>
>>other WGs (e.g.
>>
>>> TEWG) to insure overall usefulness.
>>>
>>> - Definition of protocol(s) and extensions to them required for
>>> link and path attribute measurement. Link Management
>>
>>Protocol (LMP)
>>
>>> is included here.
>>>
>>> - Functional specification of extensions for routing
>>
>>(OSPF, ISIS) and
>>
>>> signalling (RSVP-TE) required for path
>>
>>establishment. Protocol formats
>>
>>> and procedures that embody these extensions will be
>>
>>done jointly with
>>
>>> the WGs supervising those protocols.
>>>
>>> - Definition of the mechanisms required to determine the
>>
>>route and
>>
>>> properties of an established path (tunnel tracing).
>>>
>>> - Definition of MIB modules relevant to the protocols
>>
>>and extensions
>>
>>> specified within the WG.
>>>
>>> CCAMP WG currently works on the following tasks:
>>>
>>> - Define how the properties of network resources gathered by a
>>> measurement protocol can be distributed in existing routing
>>> protocols, such as OSPF and IS-IS. CCAMP defines the generic
>>> description of the properties and how they are
>>
>>distributed in OSPF.
>>
>>> The specifics of distribution within IS-IS are being
>>
>>addressed in
>>
>>> the ISIS WG.
>>>
>>> - Define signaling and routing mechanisms to make
>>
>>possible the creation
>>
>>> of paths that span multiple IGP areas, multiple
>>
>>ASes, and multiple
>>
>>> providers, including techniques for crankback.
>>>
>>> - Define abstract link and path properties needed for
>>
>>link and path
>>
>>> protection. Specify signalling mechanisms for path
>>
>>protection,
>>
>>> diverse routing and fast path restoration. Ensure
>>
>>that multi-layer
>>
>>> path protection and restoration functions are
>>
>>achievable using the
>>
>>> defined signalling, routing, and measurement
>>
>>protocols, either
>>
>>> separately or in combination.
>>>
>>> - Identify requirements for signaling and routing for
>>
>>ASON not currently
>>
>>> met; based on these, define mechanisms to address
>>
>>these requirements.
>>
>>> - Define a protocol that can determine the actual route and other
>>> properties of paths set up by CCAMP signaling
>>
>>protocols, as well
>>
>>> as other types of tunnels (tunnel tracing).
>>>
>>> In doing this work, the WG will work closely with at
>>
>>least the following
>>
>>> other WGs: TEWG, MPLS, ISIS, OSPF. The WG will also
>>
>>cooperate with
>>
>>> ITU-T.
>>>
>>> Goals and Milestones:
>>> Done Post strawman WG goals and charter
>>> Done Identify and document a limited set of candidate
>>
>>solutions for signalling
>>
>>> and for measurement. Among candidate control
>>
>>solutions to be considered are the
>>
>>> existing GMPLS drafts
>>> Done Build appropriate design teams
>>> Done Submit WG document defining path setup portions of
>>
>>common control plane protocol
>>
>>> Done Submit WG document defining common measurement
>>
>>plane protocol
>>
>>> Nov 03 Submit LMP MIB to IESG
>>> Dec 03 Submit GMPLS MIBs to IESG
>>> Dec 03 Submit protection & restoration documents to IESG
>>> Dec 03 Submit ASON signaling requirements doc to IESG
>>> Jan 04 Produce CCAMP WG document for multi-area/AS
>>
>>signaling and routing
>>
>>> Jan 04 Produce CCAMP WG document for generic tunnel
>>
>>tracing protocol
>>
>>> Feb 04 Submit ASON routing requirements doc to IESG
>>> Mar 04 Submit revised charter and milestones to IESG for
>>
>>IESG consideration of more
>>
>>> detailed deliverables and determination of
>>
>>usefulness of continuation of WG
>>
>>>
>>
>>