Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds

["Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>]

Hi Dimitri,
            some comments in line.

Regards

Diego



Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be@ops.ietf.org on 23/08/2006 10.33.10

Sent by:    owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org


To:    Dan Li <danli@huawei.com>
cc:    Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org,
       owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org

Subject:    Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds

hi -

see inline





Dan Li <danli@huawei.com>
Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
21/08/2006 04:01

        To:     Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL, Adrian Farrel
<adrian@olddog.co.uk>
        cc:     ccamp@ops.ietf.org, owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
        Subject:        Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds


Hi Dimitri,

Please see in line.

Regards,

Dan

----- Original Message -----
From: <Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 6:32 AM
Subject: Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds

[snipped]

> hence, it is strongly suggested to identify conditions when such CP->MP
is
> required (and not an alternative to existing CP mechanisms) b/f
> progressing that part
>
[dan] In order to make the carriers' life easy, when we provide the MP->CP
conversion feature, the reverse procedure (CP->MP) may also is needed just
simply in case the carriers want to withdraw their previous decision, and
they also feel more comfortable with this "undo" function; In order to
achieve
this, we should have the working control plane.

[dp] concerning CP->MP input you provided would be helpful to have
carrier's speaking for themselves
[dc] I think they or some of them already did this.  Looking at the pool
seems that at least 4 carries voted yes to the ID.

 - now there is indeed a side question shall CCAMP take
care about operators that want to step back from GMPLS or more generally
any control plane technology (usually concern is how to move forward not
backward)
[dc] Of course I think we should.

[snipped]