adrian, all my suggestion is to focus the work on a step-wise basiswe have a requirement doc. and an architecture doc. that can at this point in time be the main focus wrt workplan setup by the chairs (note there was no timeline associated when the email detailing the workplan was sent during summer time). they deserve to be commented and discussed on the list also (if that is still possible). in order to accelerate the process we might even propose certain deadlines/milestones for such commenting phases.
concerning the strict protocol work, per Ethernet fwd'ing techno solution/spec is not the right approach imho. what we should do is work on the protocol mechanisms label distribution, resource reservation, source explicit routing, re-routing, etc. and the protocol elements label, tspecs, etc. This such that it becomes possible to articulate them wrt to the Ethernet fwd'ing technos and not define the Ethernet control elements on a per-techno basis. i am not saying this is necessarily possible for all Ethernet fwd'ing technos but it is the role of the former documents to determine how far we could progress with such approach.
Reasons are:a) techno-specific elements have always been minimized in RFC 3945 arch. (technos do not impact the core GMPLS protocol arch. and processing, remember the early good days of an LSR associated to any kind of switching node)
b) on a practical basis, does it make sense to have X GMPLS protocol specs (and so implementations) because there are X (foreseen) Ethernet fwd'ing techno that could fit ?
c) how these different control elements are going to easily interoperate (wrt to the interoperability of the fwd'ing components) ?
thanks, -d. Adrian Farrel wrote:
Hi Loa,Deborah and I want to move the Ethernet I-Ds forward (into the WG) as quickly as possible, but we also need to organise our thoughts.Can you give us a couple of days to work out what we want to do with the drafts, and in what order?In the mean time, a reminder to the whole WG that they should review and comment on the list. Questions and issues are welcomed. Suggested text is best.Thanks, Adrian ----- Original Message ----- From: "Loa Andersson" <loa@pi.se> To: "ccamp" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 2:28 AM Subject: what happened alternatively what will happenAdrian and Deborah, yesterday a set of IDs on GMPLS control of Ethernet were presented; given that I remember correctly the author of the requirement draft said they think that the draft will be ready to become a working group document after next IETF meeting. The authors of the architecture draft for GMPLS controlled Ethernet and the protocol extensions for control of PBT-TE networks requested that their draft should be accepted as working group documents. No sense of the room were taken or "take it to the list" statement. What's the plan? /Loa -- Loa Andersson Principal Networking Architect Acreo AB phone: +46 8 632 77 14 Isafjordsgatan 22 mobile: +46 739 81 21 64 Kista, Sweden email: loa.andersson@acreo.se loa@pi.seThis email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. http://www.astaro.com.