RE: Proposed CCAMP recharter

["Don Fedyk" <dwfedyk@nortel.com>]

Hi Adrian

Hi Adrian

The description of the term "connection-oriented" does not hold quite
the same meaning in the IEEE as in the IETF.  In IEEE, my understanding
is that unicast and multicast services in Ethernet are all considered
"connections" or "associations" when they are part of the same Service
VLAN or Service Instance. So many types of Ethernet services can be
considered "connection-oriented".    

Therefore the term "connection-oriented" might be confusing. (The IETF
also considers TCP "connection oriented" even though IP is
connectionless datagram based.) 

I would suggest we use something descriptive like "Explicit Route
Controlled Paths", or "Automating Configured Ethernet Paths".  

Just a suggestion,
Don   

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Hi Julien,

> 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".

OK. I'll modify the text I just suggested to Dimitri, to say 
"connection-oriented"

> On the other hand, (echoing Dimitri again)
> we are also considering Ethernet services over any GMPLS-controlled
> layer.

Agree. But don't think we need milestones.

> I also agree it is useless to rearrange all short-term milestones
(unlike 
> the
> charter which has a more long-term value).

I tend to agree, but I suspect that the IESG will find it hard to
approve a 
re-charter with dates that have been passed.

Thanks,
Adrian