Subject: Re: [bmwg] Fwd: Tentative Agenda for BMWG at IETF-57

From: Kevin Dubray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:15:47 -0400

Scott Poretsky wrote:
 >
 > In Atlanta, Jerry presented "Automatic Protection Switching Benchmark
 > Terminology".  We had a 15 minute discussion.  The group concluded with
 > Kevin's agreement and affirmation that the proposed work was too broad
 > and MPLS should not be addressed in the same document as SONET APS and
 > RPR.  I am open to the MPLS Protection Methodology being covered under
 > this work item or considered a separate work item.  I guess we can
 > revisit it at the meeting.

 From the Atlanta BMWG minutes:

"Since protection could happen at various layers (or sub-layers), such as
SONET or MPLS, there was a discussion on how best to tackle this.  The
group gravitated to the idea that a single, common terminology document
with subsequent methodology documents for individual recovery
mechanisms (e.g., one for MPLS, one for APS, etc.) might be the way to go."

I believe the current effort proposes to conform to the above notions, no?
(I.e., single terminology spec; multiple, narrowly focused methodological
specifications?)

_______________________________________________
bmwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

---

From: Kevin Dubray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:15:47 -0400

---

From: Scott Poretsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:41:07 -0400

Kevin,

I believe this is consistent with the work that has been completed thus far 
on the Protection Terminology draft and the MPLS Protection Methodology 
draft.

Please note that the MPLS Protection Methodology draft uses only existing 
terms from existing RFCs produced by the MPLS Working Group.  The 
co-authors prefer that the MPLS Protection Methodology remain consistent 
with the MPLS WG.  Do you agree with this approach?

Scott

---

From: Scott Poretsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 16:41:07 -0400

Kevin,

Scott