Re: Proposed CCAMP recharter

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Hi Dimitri,

Thanks for comments:

> - MRN req + eval. should imho be ready by end Aug.

Sure. But by the time we have been through WG last call and done the updates 
:-(

> - concerning the i/w document i'd like to suggest referring to MPLS-TE 
> (rather than MPLS) since applying only to RSVP-TE

Right. As reflected in the actual names of the I-Ds.

> - 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

I'll strike "and solutions" from the milestone.

> we need also a milestone for input to the MPLS security doc. but not sure 
> this has to be recorded

Do we need a specific milestone for this?
The work is being done in the MPLS WG with consultation to CCAMP. I think 
this is just a case of CCAMP needing to review proactively and reactively, 
and needing to generate text according to what we find.

> 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

OK, so you'd like the charter to reflect something of the rules of 
engagement that we set out in GELS?

In that case, we will need to add a specific item to the list of scope 
topics in the charter.

- Work on procedures and extensions to GMPLS for the control
 of Ethernet devices for data planes that are already approved by
 an SDO with responsibility for the Ethernet data plane. It is
 expected that the primary SDO in this case is the IEEE. Note
 that the specification or modification of Ethernet data planes is
 out of scope.

> - is this milestone also including Ethernet service signaling e.g. MEF ? 
> in that case i would suggest to make a clear distinction here ?

Some work, I think, is within scope and does not need a specific milestone. 
We don't need to introduce milestones for every I-D.

Thanks,
Adrian