Subject: Control Plane Robustness [Was: Moving forward with the CCAMP charter]

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:05:45 +0100

Hi,

I think you are Young Hwa Kim.

> I propose that we handle control plane resilience in our CCAMP
> charter.

Since two other drafts in the same sort of area have also been mentioned
(draft-ali-ccamp-mpls-graceful-shutdown and
draft-leroux-ccamp-ctrl-saturation) I think we are seeing some support for
a work item on control plane robustness.

> I think that the CCAMP WG is focussing on the data and control
> planes for GMPLS.
> Until now we have handled the data plane part for resilience, but
> we have no results of control plane resilience.
> I had presented my contribution for requirements of control plane
> resilience through draft-kim-ccamp-cpr-reqts-00.txt last year.
> On the November meeting this year, I will present an updated
> document of requirements for control plane resilience , and a
> new or extended protocol specification document for control
> plane resilience.

I hope you will not wait for the November meeting. The intention of the
meetings is to meet and discuss technical issues, not to act as a
submission deadline for new versions of drafts. It is always helpful to
publish drafts in good time and as soon as they are ready so that they can
be reviewed and discussed.

I am surprised that you do not also mention
draft-kim-ccamp-cc-protection-04.txt

It would be helpful if the WG could look at your two drafts and comment.
As yet there has not been wide support expressed for what you are
suggesting, and I need to see a greater degree of consensus before I can
bring this into the WG.

Thus my feeling at the moment is that Control Plane Robustness should be
an area that CCAMP looks at, but we should not set any specific
milestones.

Regards,
Adrian

> Of course, I think it's possible under the condition that the topic of
control plane
> resilience could be handled in the CCAMP charter.

-----¿øº≫ ¸Þ½AAo-----
From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
From Date: 2005-08-16 ¿AEA 8:28:11
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "'Kireeti Kompella'"
<[email-masked]>
Subject: Moving forward with the CCAMP charter

Hi,

Please find attached a file that contains:

- a set of proposed *draft* milestones
- a discussion of why there are so many milestones
- a high-level explanation of the work items.

Note that this looks like a lot of milestones, but please read the text on
this issue in the attached file. The bottom line is that this is a product
of micro management where I have tried to identify all of the I-Ds that we
might produce to cover the referenced work, and where I have placed two
(sometimes three) milestones for each I-D.

This micro-management may be over the top, and represents a full pendulum
swing from the previous style of CCAMP milestones, but in the light of the
hiatus of the last 12 months, i think this may be beneficial and might
achieve rapid forwards movement.

I would welcome your (constructive!) comments.

Notes:
- Why isn't my I-D also cited as input material?
  No insult intended. The current list is simply there to
  show the ADs that work is already in progress. All I-Ds
  will be used as input.
- Why isn't my pet topic included?
  Are you sure it is not there between the lines? This
  list of milestones isn't completely proscriptive.

The objective is to have the WG agreed on the milestones that it wants to
commit to by the end of August.

Thanks,
Adrian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "김영화" <[email-masked]>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "'Kireeti Kompella'" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 10:32 AM
Subject: RE: Moving forward with the CCAMP charter

---

From: dimitri papadimitriou <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 15:49:28 +0200

adrian,

Adrian Farrel wrote:
[snip]
> an area that CCAMP looks at, but we should not set any specific

if you mean explicitly listed as part of the wg scope without explicit 
milestone i would agree,

also, a way to avoid having to modify the charter each time a specific 
work item related to this area would need to be produced by the working 
group

thanks,
- dimitri.

>>control plane resilience could be handled in the CCAMP charter.
> 
> 
> -----¢¯©ª¨¬¡í ¢¬¨¨öAAo-----
>>From Date: 2005-08-16 ¢¯AEA 8:28:11
> From: "±è¿µÈ­" <[email-masked]>
> .