Subject: Re: Frameformat in a l2cs gmpls rnvironment.

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:19:35 +0200

adrian -

what do you EXACTLY mean with the following sentence

"This question is one we must come to as soon as we are confident that the
requirements need to be addressed at all."

please clarify - btw who is "we" in this context ?

this sentence reads to me as "CCAMP has not yet committed to work on this
topic" is my reading correct ? or do you mean something else with this ?

thanks,
- dimitri.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:08:34 +0100

Dimitri,

> please clarify - btw who is "we" in this context ?

"We" means "the CCAMP working group"

> topic" is my reading correct ? or do you mean something else with this ?

Your reading is exactly correct as stated.
I refer you to your email to the list on 19th July. You asked...
> - if yes, is the interest in GMPLS for Ethernet in-/out-side the
>   CCAMP WG community strong enough to consider the corr. GMPLS
>   signaling and routing requirements (second part of the document)
>   as part of the CCAMP WG effort ?

Thus, the purpose of the I-D was to crystalize the authors' thoughts on
GMPLS control of Ethernet switching and to initiate discussion on whether
the proposed deployment models are realistic and desirable. Following a
positive answer and assuming support (by CCAMP) for the doing the work (in
CCAMP) all that remains is to add the work to the charter (see previous
charter discussions) and get on with it.

Thanks,
Adrian