Subject: 50th IETF - TEWG Meeting Minutes

From: Papadimitriou Dimitri <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 03:10:29 +0200

Dear all,

I would like to ask several questions, in order to illustrate my
concerns
Let's try to examine the first exchange during the last TE meeting (cf.
minutes):

> Scott Bradner:
> Clarify relationship between TEWG and other groups, particularly
CCAMP.
> tewg: defines what is needed, providing input to ccamp

This clearly states that TE provides requirements to the CCAMP.
Nevertheless
may i ask you "how input is exchanged between WG" is there any
well-known
procedure ?

Here i wonder why the restoration drafts presentated during the CCAMP
have been pushed to the TE WG ? I got the impression that these drafts
were a first input to potential mechanisms and from what i know routing
diversity
(or path disjointness) for instance is one of the carrier requirements
at least
for non-packet based networks when consulting the carrier requirements
accepted
at the IPO WG which in principle gives input to the CCAMP (therefore
this requirement
should be included somewhere).

> What is clear is a couple of efforts need to go on. Work on hierarchy
and
> restoration.  Wants volunteers to work on this (design team) -
particularly
> carriers.  Please get in touch with Scott, Bert, Randy to say what
category
> you fit in and what you want to work on.

I assume that you mean by category: vendor - carrier - ISP - etc.
Nevertheless i still have some problems to clearly define what's the
definition
of a design team ? How a design team is constituted ? How collaboration
can
be established ? Is there any procedure ?

> Rob Coltun:
> Issue here is what is needed by the community wrt
> hierarchy/restoration - not what is possible.

To which community do you refer here, the whole IETF community, or the
one of the several categories mentioned here above ?

> Sandra Ballarte: Q: restoration of packet layer or optical layer?
> Jim Boyle: A: Intent is these teams are not limited to data layer.

So the requirement drafts should be submitted to the CCAMP since this WG
was
defined as "generic" WG defining common mechanism ? However in that case
the
input should come from the IPO notice that this latter WG has accepted
the framework
and the optical control plane requirements.

Thanks in advance,
Dimitri.