Subject: [CCAMP] Following up on Vancouver overlay discussion

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:08:29 -0500

All,

We wanted to follow up on the plan we discussed in Vancouver.

In Vancouver, we had talked about three types of documents:
   Document 1 - Models & Terminology
	To be based on existing text / drafts
   Document 2 - Framework
	To includes analysis of what can be supported
	and what functions need support
	(Again, taking from existing text / drafts
	where available.)
   Document type 3 - Solution documents
	To be purely contribution driven

The enlisted editors of the first document (Julien and Oscar) have been
making progress and we expect that they will publish a draft soon.  This
draft will be a starting point for discussion and
contribution/co-authorship, rather than anything near completion.

It's our hope that the document will be a sufficient foundation for work
on Document 2 to start.  Keep in mind that all documents will be based
on contributions brought to / discussed by the WG.  To be clear, and
to respond to some off-list e-mail, there is no limitation on
discussion, drafts or presentations at the next meeting on this or any
related topic.

Deborah and Lou

---

From: John E Drake <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 22:33:30 +0000

Deborah and Lou,

The authors of draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange plan to post a new revision before the London IETF deadline. We think this document already contains the material for your documents 1 & 2    and clearly shows that very few protocol extensions will be needed. The document also addresses both multi-technology scenarios as well as peer-network use cases. We believe that there has been a good level of offline discussion and support of this document and would like to hear comments on the mailing list.

In particular, whether it is ready for adoption by the WG.

Yours Irrespectively,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: CCAMP [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 11:08 AM
> To: CCAMP; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)
> Subject: [CCAMP] Following up on Vancouver overlay discussion
> 
> All,
> 
> The enlisted editors of the first document (Julien and Oscar) have been making
> progress and we expect that they will publish a draft soon.  This draft will be a
> starting point for discussion and contribution/co-authorship, rather than
> anything near completion.
> 
> It's our hope that the document will be a sufficient foundation for work on
> Document 2 to start.  Keep in mind that all documents will be based on
> contributions brought to / discussed by the WG.  To be clear, and to respond to
> some off-list e-mail, there is no limitation on discussion, drafts or
> presentations at the next meeting on this or any related topic.
> 
> Deborah and Lou
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp
>

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 17:51:56 -0500

John,
	This sounds like great progress.  Clearly the objective is to document
WG views on this topic, whether it be in 1 document or 2. I look forward
to seeing the updated document and the associated discussions (on it and
the other related drafts) in London.  I expect that adoption will depend
on how that and any list discussions go, particularly how the other
perspectives that have been/are voiced are addressed.

Thanks,
Lou

On 01/29/2014 05:33 PM, John E Drake wrote:
> Deborah and Lou,
> 
> The authors of draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange plan to
> post a new revision before the London IETF deadline. We think this
> document already contains the material for your documents 1 & 2
> and clearly shows that very few protocol extensions will be needed.
> The document also addresses both multi-technology scenarios as well
> as peer-network use cases. We believe that there has been a good
> level of offline discussion and support of this document and would
> like to hear comments on the mailing list.
>

---

From: "Zafar Ali (zali)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 03:18:32 +0000

Hi:

Section "GMPLS UNI and Overlay Networks" of
draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange-02 requires more work and
details on the signaling based solution, before we can agree readiness of
this draft as Document 2 (&1) that WG agreed to work on.

Thanks

Regards Š Zafar

-----Original Message-----
From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:51 PM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]>, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Following up on Vancouver overlay discussion

---

From: Gert Grammel <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2014 07:50:25 +0000

Hi Zafar,

could you spell out what are the technical aspects you are missing? 

Thanks

Gert

-----Original Message-----
From: CCAMP [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Zafar Ali (zali)
Sent: 30 January 2014 04:19
To: Lou Berger; John E Drake; CCAMP; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Following up on Vancouver overlay discussion

Hi:

Section "GMPLS UNI and Overlay Networks" of
draft-farrel-interconnected-te-info-exchange-02 requires more work and details on the signaling based solution, before we can agree readiness of this draft as Document 2 (&1) that WG agreed to work on.

Thanks

Regards Š Zafar

-----Original Message-----
From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:51 PM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"

>WG views on this topic, whether it be in 1 document or 2. I look 
>forward to seeing the updated document and the associated discussions 
>(on it and the other related drafts) in London.  I expect that adoption 
>will depend on how that and any list discussions go, particularly how 
>the other perspectives that have been/are voiced are addressed.
>
>Thanks,
>Lou
>
>> document already contains the material for your documents 1 & 2 and 
>> clearly shows that very few protocol extensions will be needed.
>>> The enlisted editors of the first document (Julien and Oscar) have 
>>>been making  progress and we expect that they will publish a draft 
>>>soon.  This draft will be a  starting point for discussion and 
>>> It's our hope that the document will be a sufficient foundation for 
>>>work on  Document 2 to start.  Keep in mind that all documents will 
>>>be based on  contributions brought to / discussed by the WG.  To be 
>>>clear, and to respond to  some off-list e-mail, there is no 
>>>limitation on discussion, drafts or  presentations at the next 
>>>meeting on this or any related topic.
>>>
>>> Deborah and Lou
>>>
>>>