Subject: RE: no more milestones?

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:38:24 +0100

Thomas D. Nadeau Sent: 18 July 2005 14:06
> On Jul 18, 2005, at 9:00 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> >
> > hi adrian
> >
> >
> >> I would like to see:
> >> - a refinement of the charter to focus the next work items
> >> - a year's worth of milestones to ensure we stay focused.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, we should aim to close down CCAMP and move the
> >> work to
> >> other or new working groups.
> >>
> >
> > coupling both sentences does it mean in your view
> >
> > 1) define several short-term milestones for refining topics that  
> > have been
> > already initiated and requires further well scoped attention
> >
> > 2) (brand) new topics should target new working groups - as already
> > initiated with L1VPN for inst. - or existing working groups
> >
> > nevertheless, i do not see why this automatically means 
> CCAMP can not
> > remain the focal point concerning *base* GMPLS signaling and routing
> > protocols
> 
>      I agree. There are for instance, ops/management-related items
> for "base" CCAMP items that need to be worked on.  The question
> for me is why can't we continue to work on these?  I thought
> these things were automatic chartered items, and thus should
> be ongoing work items.
> 
>      --Tom
NH=> You are right Tom to raise the point about the importance of
network management here.  When we are dealing with large BW granularity
co-cs mode technologies then virtually all the really important issues
are concerned with the efficacy of the management-plane solution....the
control-plane plays a minor support role (for a whole raft of
technical/commercial/operational reasons).  This is of course quite the
opposite to a cl-ps layer network like IP.  We look to TMF for expertise
here in developing the required management information models which are
based on functional architecture.

regards, Neil
> > thanks,
> > - dimitri.

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:40:59 +0100

Hi Neil and Tom,

>> There are for instance, ops/management-related items
>You are right Tom to raise the point about the importance of
>network management here.  When we are dealing with large BW
>granularity co-cs mode technologies then virtually all the
>really important issues are concerned with the efficacy of the
>management-plane solution....the control-plane plays a minor
>support role (for a whole raft of technical/commercial/operational
>reasons). This is of course quite the opposite to a cl-ps layer
>network like IP.  We look to TMF for expertise here in developing
>the required management information models which are based on
>functional architecture.

I think you are right, Neil, that we would largely look outside the IETF
for management plane solutions.

What Tom is referring to, of course, is the management aspects necessary
as part of the control plane solutions. Aspects such as MIB modules, PIBs,
OAM etc.

I'm sure that I don't have to remind you that GMPLS is a control plane
technology not a data plane technology. The applicability of GMPLS is to
any co data plane technology and therefore it embraces both co-cs and
co-ps.

In answer to Tom's question, we are not prohibited from working on these
things, but we are rather adrift without any milestones. i would certainly
say that the right place to bring drafts for discussion is the CCAMP list.

However, before committing the WG to any specific drafts the chairs need
to be guided by an up-to-date charter with real milestones. I do hope that
the discussions in Paris will lead to these so that we can get on with the
work that everyone is so keen to do.

Cheers,
Adrian