Subject: [CCAMP] Charter update discussion

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:42:51 +0200

All,
	We didn't have adequate time to complete our charter update discussion.
(Slides are at
http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/83/slides/slides-83-ccamp-30.pdf, charter
is available at http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/charters). The key points
are:

1) The general description of the WG is in good shape,
   so no major recharter is needed/planned.
2) Our milestones are very out of date.
3) Our milestones don't reflect current major work items.
4) There are several items where we will propose

Discussion topic 1: Old milestones

We've taken a pass at updating the dates on our listed, but not yet
completed, milestones in slide 4 from today's session.  There are two
items that don't have corresponding drafts.  The question for the WG is
do we still want to deliver the these.  In particular:

1A: Does anyone plan on submitting/contributing to drafts on WSON
impairments?

1B: Does anyone plan on submitting/contributing to drafts on LMP for G.709?

Topic 2:

We have several items identified in current RFCs and drafts satisfied in
slide 5.  We (the chairs) will propose some dates for drafts that
already exist.  If you are interested in contributing a draft
corresponding to one of the other items, please know that these are
areas that have a good probability of being accepted into the WG.

Discussion Topic 3: Other Work

This topic is made up of two questions. If you want to answer one,
please answer both:

3A: Do you have another work item for the WG?

3B: What is the *current* draft name that may serve as the WG foundation
for this item?  (Note, if there isn't a draft, this work item probably
needs to wait until the next round of updates.)

Lou and Deborah

---

From: Leeyoung <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:05:45 +0000

Hi Lou,

1A - yes. We will soon revive info model draft to begin with...

Young

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Lou Berger
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 5:43 AM
To: CCAMP
Cc: CCAMP ADs
Subject: [CCAMP] Charter update discussion

All,

Topic 2:

Lou and Deborah

_______________________________________________
CCAMP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp

---

From: Satoru OKAMOTO <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:54:30 +0900

Hi Lou,

3A: Energy Efficient Traffic Engineering
3B: draft-okamoto-ccamp-midori-gmpls-extension-reqs-01.txt

Regards,

Satoru Okamoto

---

From: Fatai Zhang <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:03:04 +0000

Hi Lou,

[Fatai], Yes, I will revisit the existing draft [draft-zhang-ccamp-gmpls-g709-lmp-discovery-05] and submit a new version.

Thanks,

Fatai

________________________________________
发件人: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] 代表 Lou Berger [[email-masked]]
发送时间: 2012年3月28日 18:42
到: CCAMP
Cc: CCAMP ADs
主题: [CCAMP] Charter update discussion

All,

Topic 2:

Lou and Deborah

---

From: Daniele Ceccarelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:06:13 +0200

Yes, there are actually 2 draft that only need to be refreshed

Daniele 

>Sent: mercoledì 28 marzo 2012 12.43
>To: CCAMP
>Cc: CCAMP ADs
>http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/83/slides/slides-83-ccamp-30.pdf, 
>charter is available at 
>http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ccamp/charters). The key points
>are:
>
>We've taken a pass at updating the dates on our listed, but 
>not yet completed, milestones in slide 4 from today's session. 
> There are two items that don't have corresponding drafts.  
>The question for the WG is do we still want to deliver the 
>these.  In particular:
>
>1A: Does anyone plan on submitting/contributing to drafts on 
>WSON impairments?
>
>We have several items identified in current RFCs and drafts 
>satisfied in slide 5.  We (the chairs) will propose some dates 
>for drafts that already exist.  If you are interested in 
>contributing a draft corresponding to one of the other items, 
>please know that these are areas that have a good probability 
>of being accepted into the WG.
>
>This topic is made up of two questions. If you want to answer 
>one, please answer both:
>
>3B: What is the *current* draft name that may serve as the WG 
>foundation for this item?  (Note, if there isn't a draft, this 
>work item probably needs to wait until the next round of updates.)
>
>Lou and Deborah
>
>