Common Control and Measurement Plane
charter-ietf-ccamp-08-01

[Ballot comment]
No objection to this, but I do agree with Eric that an expansion of some of the acronyms may be useful - purely for people who are looking for working groups they may be interested in joining and partaking it and who don't wanna have to jump through hoops trying to figure out all the acryonyms in the charter :)

[Ballot comment]
The term "network slicing" was not mentioned in the descriptive part of the charter however it is in the working group scope. To understand the scope better one need to understand the term better. I would suggest to be more descriptive about it so the scope is better understood.

[Ballot comment]
I understand that this revised charter is based on the existing -08 and inherits therefore some nits:

- many acronyms are not expanded (they do not need because they are in the RFC editor list but I had to jump to that list to understand), unsure whether OEO, ROADM, ... are really useful and current

- the use of "measurement" is also weird in this case but too late to change I guess ;-)

- s/been approved by another Standards Development Organization/been specified by another Standards Development Organization/ ?

- nit: sometimes it is IS-IS, other times it is ISIS ;-)

- s/The CCAMP WG currently works/The CCAMP WG is tasked to work/ ?

All in all, no objection as the rechartering appears more like a refresh/cleanup of the existing charter. But, this is really a broad scope WG.

[Ballot comment]
I understand that this revised charter is based on the existing -08 and inherits therefore some nits:

- many acronyms are not expanded (they do not need because they are in the RFC editor list but I had to jump to that list to understand), unsure whether OEO, ROADM, ... are really useful and current

- the use of "measurement" is also weird in this case but too late to change I guess ;-)

- s/been approved by another Standards Development Organization/been specified by another Standards Development Organization/ ?

- nit: sometimes it is IS-IS, other times it is ISIS ;-)

- s/The CCAMP WG currently works/The CCAMP WG is tasked to work/ ?

All in all, no objection has the rechartering appears more like a refresh/cleanup of the existing charter. But, this is really a broad scope WG.

Other than formatting (whitespace, etc) the change to the charter is:

OLD:
Data plane: This work will document how to use IP and/or MPLS, and related OAM,
to support a data plane method of flow identification and packet forwarding over
Layer 3. Other IETF defined data plane technologies may also be used.

NEW:
Data plane: This work will document how to use IP and/or MPLS, and related OAM,
to support a data plane method of flow identification, and packet treatment
(including, for example, forwarding, service protection, and queuing) over
Layer 3. Other IETF defined data plane technologies may also be used.

The most immediate effect of this is to put queueing in-charter for DETNET.

Added milestone "Submit revised charter and milestones to IESG for IESG consideration of more detailed deliverables and determination of usefulness of continuation of WG", due March 2004, from current group milestones

Added milestone "Identify and document a limited set of candidate solutions for signalling and for measurement.  Among candidate control solutions to be considered are the existing GMPLS drafts.", due February 2001, from current group milestones

[Ballot comment]
OLD:
  Definition of management objects (e.g., as part of MIB modules
  or YANG models) and control of OAM techniques relevant to the
  protocols and extensions specified within the WG.


NEW:
  Definition of management objects (e.g., as part of MIB modules
  or YANG models) and control of OAM techniques relevant to the
  protocols and extensions specified within the WG. The OAM work
  will be synchronized with the LIME WG

[Ballot comment]
The fifth bullet strikes me as a bit odd:

- Determine non-packet-specific aspects of traffic engineering
  including for multi-areas/multi-AS/multi-layer scenarios in
  cooperation with the TEAS and PCE working groups.

"Determine" is a weird verb for a work items. Do you mean "Develop protocols for non-packet-specific aspects of TE", or do you mean something else?