[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Proposed CCAMP recharter
Hi Adrian.
I agree with Dimitri about the use of the term "Ethernet". As we don't control IP but MPLS-TE, we're looking into controlling a "connection-oriented Ethernet" which isn't really Ethernet and not supported by typical "Ethernet switches". On the other hand, (echoing Dimitri again) we are also considering Ethernet services over any GMPLS-controlled layer.
I also agree it is useless to rearrange all short-term milestones (unlike the charter which has a more long-term value).
Regards,
Julien
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of dimitri papadimitriou
adrian
couple of points on editorship:
- MRN req + eval. should imho be ready by end Aug.
- concerning the i/w document i'd like to suggest referring to MPLS-TE
(rather than MPLS) since applying only to RSVP-TE
- also you refer to a solution for the latter but we just have req. and
a framework since so far -> are u sure solution would be ready by Sep'07
or alternatively the former doc shall be split and further discussed
we need also a milestone for input to the MPLS security doc. but not
sure this has to be recorded
concerning the charter, two specific comments
- like also mentioned during the second meeting, clarifying the term
Ethernet types would be suggested otherwise entering in an open-ended
discussion about what is allowed/not allowed, desired/not-desired,
possible/not possible, etc. and probably focus on the analytical work
here (something we should have probably done in the GELS context but
did not happen) - side note here it was always felt useful to have
operational use case described as well but that work did also never happen
- is this milestone also including Ethernet service signaling e.g. MEF ?
in that case i would suggest to make a clear distinction here ?
thanks,
-d.
Adrian Farrel wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> .
>