Please find below the WebEx info for tomorrow's FPSM call.
I put the following items on the agenda:
() Confirmation of IETF91 discussion and received advice
() Synergies with other IETF activity
() FPSM data model
() Next steps
() Chat about.. Expectation from concrete protocol implementations
Hi Pierrick,
thanks for the feedback. Agree that we can avoid the anchor term, since there
is always some
expectation on such node. DPE is good, or simply Data-Plane Node (DPN), as we
where using it in the past discussion. No strong opinion here.
The WG may still need to converge on a
De : Marco Liebsch [mailto:marco.lieb...@neclab.eu]
Envoyé : jeudi 18 décembre 2014 15:45
À : SEITE Pierrick IMT/OLN; dmm@ietf.org
Objet : RE: [DMM] Data-Plane anchors in a control-/data-plane separated
deyploment
Hi Pierrick,
thanks for the feedback. Agree that we can avoid the anchor term,
Marco,
Should some of this discussion on terminology be part of the other
arch/deployment spec ? We should use a consist terminology across all of these
4 documents. I think the discussions we have had early this year on the DMM
functional entities, terminology and the deployment models should
Sri,
I agree that some of the discussion is related to the deployment document. On
the other hand,
for the specs about the interface between Control-/Data-Plane, which is what
the FPSM topic is about,
the differentiation of data-plane functional entities does not matter, since
the
Is there such a thing? I did not know that.
What thing ?
There are 4 work items that we discussed and that the chairs are tracking.
One of the work item is Architectural/Deployment considerations. Please
refer to presentations in IETF90 and IETF89. Also, there were two f2f
discussions during
