[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: =?euc-kr?B?W8i4vcVdIFdHIENvbnNlbnN1cyBDYWxsOiBkcmFmdC1zd2FsbG93?==?euc-kr?B?LWdtcGxzLW92ZXJsYXktMDAudHh0?=
- From: Kireeti Kompella <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 22:07:32 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <54A1DDB4ACD5D511B0F900D0B7A8DC08A75D97@cms1.etri.re.kr>
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> I think it doesn't matter about the CCAMP WG
> whether OIF is a standardzation body or not,
It is important to set the record straight, especially if this is
used in support of arguments that affect CCAMP.
> and ITU-T prefer the overlay model to the peer model.
I don't see where this statement comes from. Are you asserting
this, or are you speaking on behalf of the ITU?
> The important thing is what the CCAMP's mission is.
> If the CCAMP WG handles only the peer model,
> my answer to agree to the above document as a WG document is no.
> Otherwise, yes.
The CCAMP charter does not mention overlay or peer. Signaling
is definitely in CCAMP's charter. Moreover, the second work item,
namely "- Define signalling and measurement protocols that are
independent of each other" etc. clearly indicates that CCAMP is
chartered to show how signaling can be done independently of routing.
This ID shows how.
> I think that the CCAMP WG covers the control plane in the optical networks.
Point of clarification: CCAMP covers a COMMON control plane, which may
be specialized to optical networks.
> The control plane could be configured using the overlay model,
> the peer model or something that we may not be familiar with.
> In that sense, I think the above document have to be considered a WG