[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-00.txt
I suppose that I missed something - was LMP-WDM
previously incorporated into the LMP specification?
That would explain how something from LMP-WDM
has somehow become a draft "separated" from
I thought that before going to Working Group
Last Call that a draft should at least be given
some review, perhaps even the opportunity given
for people to consider alternatives.
But I see that you speak for "our community" so
everyone else must agree with you!
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 4:49 PM
To: Ong, Lyndon
Cc: 'Kireeti Kompella'; Bernstein, Greg; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-00.txt
that's not complicated the text is basically the one that
was included in other wg i-d's concerning among other sonet/sdh
(in particular draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-wdm-00.txt) and we include
it in this i-d - since they were intimately related - and put
it in section 4 were you will read that we put all our attention
in order to avoid any "mandatory" mechanism (following our
previous mailing discussions)
therefore we follow the rule of more consistence "include all
the technology specific mechanism" in a dedicated i-d;
consequently i don't really see where the assertion "not endorsed
by the wg" applies and as said by kireeti this i-d will undergo
a wg last call thus here i don't see why you think the content
won't be "reviewed" by the ccamp community
hope this clarifies (once for all) the non-technical part of
this discussion - this said our community is still asking for
any valuable technical comment on these wg i-d's -
"Ong, Lyndon" wrote:
> Hi Dimitri,
> This is not complicated, "separation" sounds like you take
> an existing WG draft text and split some of it off into a
> separate document, as was in fact done with the earlier
> gmpls signaling documents that you pointed out.
> Here, there was basically a new set of text created from
> scratch, so it is more akin to a new individual draft
> and the text has not been reviewed or endorsed by the WG.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 11:10 AM
> To: Ong, Lyndon
> Cc: 'Kireeti Kompella'; Bernstein, Greg; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-00.txt
> i suggest that you take another look at the document
> because it clearly says "In [LMP], a link verification
> procedure is defined whereby Test messages are transmitted
> in-band over the data links. This is used for data plane
> discovery, Interface_Id exchange (Interface_Ids are used
> in GMPLS signaling, either as port labels [GMPLS-SIG] or
> component link identifiers [BUNDLE], depending on the
> configuration), and physical connectivity verification."
> thus complete the sentence by saying that this document
> uses a "generic mechanism" the link verification as
> defined in [LMP], for (among other) discovery purposes
> and this i-d describes the way to achieve it for sonet/
> sdh environments, thus we follow the ad's advices by
> meeting the mailing list comments ...
> ... by the way an update of the bootstrap document has
> been issued addressing the valuable comments we have
> received through the ccamp mailing list:
> the first comment is difficult to understand from the
> technical viewpoint (imho you agree on an assertion this
> does not make this assertion more valid) by the way when
> we split the gmpls signalling into gmpls-sonet-sdh you
> were much less shooting than today - and there the text
> was *really* different - what happened since then ? do i
> have to understand that you would like to build a car w/o
> its wheels (but... this is your *individual* choice)
> - dimitri.
> "Ong, Lyndon" wrote:
> > Hi Kireeti,
> > What is confusing people is that the new draft is not text
> > split off from the original LMP specification but almost
> > entirely new text and subject matter, as Zhi points out.
> > Also, concerns were expressed on the mailing list that some
> > of the functions in LMP were not applicable in SONET/SDH,
> > _including_ link verification. The new draft is basically
> > a set of extensions _to_ link verification.
> > Cheers,
> > L. Ong
> > Ciena
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 9:06 AM
> > To: Bernstein, Greg
> > Cc: email@example.com
> > Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-test-sonet-sdh-00.txt
> > On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Bernstein, Greg wrote:
> > > This draft seems to contain new material not in LMP. How can it be
> > already
> > > considered a working group item for CCAMP?
> > draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-01.txt had material that was not already in
> > draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-00.txt. How can it be already considered a working
> > group document item for CCAMP? und so weiter ... Are you suggesting
> > a new process for documents in the IETF, or is it just for documents
> > whose name contains the string 'lmp'?
> > <chair>
> > This draft is a separation of the original LMP draft into two documents,
> > as suggested by the primary AD: a *base* document, technology-agnostic,
> > and a SONET-SDH specific document.
> > The fact that the latter document has new material is in response to
> > requests from folks in CCAMP. Both documents will undergo another WG
> > Last Call.
> > </chair>
> > Kireeti.