Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]

hi diego -




"Diego Caviglia" <Diego.Caviglia@marconi.com>
23/08/2006 11:13
 
        To:     Dimitri PAPADIMITRIOU/BE/ALCATEL@ALCATEL
        cc:     "Dan Li <danli", "Adrian Farrel <adrian", "ccamp" 
<ccamp@ops.ietf.org>, "owner-ccamp" <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
        Subject:        Re: Polling for new WG I-Ds



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.

[dp] not sure they express specific opinion on this aspect which is "shall
we take care about how to step back from GMPLS ?" it may be the case but 
then the discussion has much fundamental impact than the discussion around
this specific i-d

 - 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.

[dp] if i well understand your conclusion putting both of your answers
toghether it would mean that CCAMP should take care about how "removing" 
GMPLS CP ? 

... interesting opinion, it took 6 years for CCAMP to have something more 
or less workable now you and your co-authors are probably trying to init 
an item to disband this work, if this is the case i don't even understand
how we are polling for this document on this list

[snipped]