Re: Proposed CCAMP recharter

["tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>]

In the 'first paragraph', I am puzzled by the change from 
 MPLS, GRE,
to
 and MPLS GRE,
which seems a material, semantic change; is this intended?

Tom Petch


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Cc: "Ross Callon" <rcallon@juniper.net>; <dward@cisco.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:25 PM
Subject: Proposed CCAMP recharter


> Hi,
> 
> As discussed at the meeting(s) we should consider a small recharter to put 
> the GELS work clearly in scope and to indicate that we will work with IEEE 
> 802.1 as necessary.
> 
> We should take the opportunity to rejig the milestones, but noting that a 
> bunch of (overdue) milestones are about to be completed it is moot whether 
> we should rearrange them all. Basically, I am too lazy to do that and 
> propose just to change the ones that are further out.
> 
> I would like to ask you all to look at this and comment. In particular: are 
> the document editors happy with these targets?
> 
> ADs - your opinions too, please.
> 
> The changes proposed are...
> ===
> First paragraph
> OLD
> The CCAMP working group coordinates the work within the IETF defining a 
> common control plane and a separate common measurement plane for physical 
> path and core tunneling technologies of Internet and telecom service 
> providers (ISPs and SPs), e.g. O-O and O-E-O optical switches, ATM and Frame 
> Relay switches, MPLS, GRE, in cooperation with the MPLS WG.
> 
> NEW
> The CCAMP working group coordinates the work within the IETF defining a 
> common control plane and a separate common measurement plane for physical 
> path and core tunneling technologies of Internet and telecom service 
> providers (ISPs and SPs), e.g. O-O and O-E-O optical switches, TDM switches, 
> Ethernet switches, ATM and Frame Relay switches, and MPLS GRE, in 
> cooperation with the MPLS WG.
> ===
> Final paragraph
> OLD
> In doing this work, the WG will work closely with at least the following 
> other WGs: MPLS, ISIS, OSPF, IDR, L1VPN and PCE. The WG will also cooperate 
> with the ITU-T.
> 
> NEW
> In doing this work, the WG will work closely with at least the following 
> other WGs: MPLS, ISIS, OSPF, IDR, L1VPN and PCE. The WG will also cooperate 
> with the ITU-T, and the IEEE 802.1.
> ===
> Milestones (only those changed or new)
> 
> Aug 2007    First version WG I-D for Protocol solutions for MLN/MRN
> Aug 2007    First version WG I-D GMPLS OAM Requirements
> Sep 2007    Submit Informational I-D for Analysis of inter-domain issues for 
> disjoint and protected paths for IESG review
> Sep 2007    Submit MPLS to GMPLS migration strategies I-D for IESG review
> Sep 2007    Submit MPLS-GMPLS interworking requirements and solutions I-D 
> for IESG review
> Sep 2007    First version WG I-Ds for control of Ethernet networks
> Oct 2007    Submit Requirements for Multi-Layer and Multi-Region Networks 
> I-D for IESG review
> Oct 2007    Submit Evaluation of existing protocols for MLN/MRN for IESG 
> review
> Oct 2007    First version of WG I-D for additional MIB module to cover 
> RSVP-TE signaling extensions
> Dec 2007    Submit OSPF-TE/GMPLS MIB module for MIB doctor and IESG review
> Jan 2008    Submit ASON Routing solutions I-D for IESG review
> Feb 2008    Submit GMPLS OAM Requirements I-D for IESG review
> Mar 2008    Submit Protocol solutions for MLN/MRN I-D for IESG review
> Apr 2008    Submit MIB module for RSVP-TE signaling extensions for MIB 
> doctor and IESG review
> May 2008    Submit protocol extensions for control of Ethernet networks for 
> IESG review
> Dec 2008    Recharter or close Working Group
> ====
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian 
> 
> 
>