it seems to me to be the right time to wrap up and look after the base operation mechanisms to be put in place for the first phase of base GMPLS deployment as well - and leave the more advanced mechanisms to "CCAMP-ING" like-WG(s) as indicated in a previous e-mail -
it is indeed difficult to understand why this is not coupled to the base protocol development as MIBs are otherwise GMPLS will appear like a wonderful and powerful toolbox developed by the IETF but without the appropriate user manual
i would nevertheless add we have also a strong need for more operational feedback otherwise the user manual will treat more about "how development community sees network operations" rather than practice "which mechanisms development community has to consider to meet user community needs" ... a way to achieve this is would be to "invite" the broad user community to express their views and concerns in terms of GMPLS deployment this may take the form of a survey ?
"Thomas D. Nadeau" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent by: email@example.com
07/18/2005 09:06 AST
To: Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
cc: "Adrian Farrel" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Bill Fenner" <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: no more milestones?
On Jul 18, 2005, at 9:00 AM, Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be wrote:
> hi adrian
>> I would like to see:
>> - a refinement of the charter to focus the next work items
>> - a year's worth of milestones to ensure we stay focused.
>> On the other hand, we should aim to close down CCAMP and move the
>> work to
>> other or new working groups.
> coupling both sentences does it mean in your view
> 1) define several short-term milestones for refining topics that
> have been
> already initiated and requires further well scoped attention
> 2) (brand) new topics should target new working groups - as already
> initiated with L1VPN for inst. - or existing working groups
> nevertheless, i do not see why this automatically means CCAMP can not
> remain the focal point concerning *base* GMPLS signaling and routing
I agree. There are for instance, ops/management-related items
for "base" CCAMP items that need to be worked on. The question
for me is why can't we continue to work on these? I thought
these things were automatic chartered items, and thus should
be ongoing work items.
> - dimitri.