Subject: what happened alternatively what will happen

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 03:28:26 +0100

Adrian 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:  [email-masked]
                                           [email-masked]

This email was Anti Virus checked by Astaro Security Gateway. http://www.astaro.com

---

From: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:43:28 +0000

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

---

From: dimitri papadimitriou <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:21:38 +0100

adrian, all

my suggestion is to focus the work on a step-wise basis

we 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:
> comment on the list. Questions and issues are welcomed. Suggested text 
> is best.
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Loa Andersson" <[email-masked]>
> .