50 likes | 199 Views
TTC 20-22 February 2008. Review of Q.4/13 work. Q.4/13 results in 01/2008 (Part 1). TD250r1(wp4) is the meeting report. Advanced the work on Y.enet (output in TD-240-WP4), which is a candidate for consent in May
E N D
TTC 20-22 February 2008 Review of Q.4/13 work
Q.4/13 results in 01/2008 (Part 1) • TD250r1(wp4) is the meeting report. • Advanced the work on Y.enet (output in TD-240-WP4), which is a candidate for consent in May • Advanced the work on Y.mpm (output in TD-252-WP4), which is a candidate for consent in May • Split Y.RACF-MPLS into two documents on central and distributed approaches respectively • Y.RACF-DistribMPLS (output in TD-239-WP4), which is a candidate for consent in May • Y.RACF-CentralMPLS (output in TD-244-WP4), which is a candidate for consent in September
Q.4/13 results in 01/2008 (Part 2) • Advanced the work on Y.2111 R2 (Y.RACF), which is a candidate for consent in May (output in TD-242R1-WP4, updated living list in TD-246-WP4) • Made progress on multicast admission control • Clarified the supported interactions between the CPN and RACF and agreed to the Ri- and Rw-like reference points. (NOTE: This needs further clarification.) • Agreed to develop a new draft Recommendation (codenamed Y.IPTV-TM) based on the FGIPTV output document on traffic management mechanisms in support of IPTV services (baseline in TD-236R1-WP4) • Agreed to the focus of mobility support on nomadicity and realistic mobility scenarios of manageable complexity
Q.4/13 results in 01/2008 (Part 3) • Agreed to the resolution of the AAP comment on and revised text of Y.2121, formerly Y.flowreq (agreement in TD-238-WP4) • Agreed to develop a new draft Recommendation (codenamed Y.FAinX) on requirements for flow aggregate information exchange (baseline in TD-243-WP4)
Proposals • Among candidate drafts for approval at the May meeting, we should identify major ones that have common interests among CJK. • Raise concerns if any and try to resolve them at the next CJK meeting in March/April. • For example, interactions between CPN and RACF still need clarification. There seems to be different views on interaction scenarios between Q.4/13 and Q.5/11. • Making use of management protocol specified in TR-069 of DSL Forum as QoS signalling needs further study. • For drafts with mid-term targets, their scope should be clarified if some CJK members wish to move ahead with them.