Re: [IP-Optical] Re: Proposed text for the concatenation

[Dimitri Papadimitriou <dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be>]

Eric et all,

For each feature which is not defined by the ITU-T or the ANSI T1,
we could add a footnote refering to the following text: "this 
feature is not defined either in ANSI T1 or in ITU-T Standards".

In addition to the proposed proposed text (see below), we could 
add under parenthesis in which section each of these features are 
defined within the draft.

--- proposed new section:

X. Relationship with SDH and SONET standards

Some of the features described in this specification are not defined
either in ANSI T1.105 (1995 and 2000), or in ITU-T G.707 (1996 and 
2000). However, these features are useful and implemented in many 
equipment's. All these features are optional but can be controlled 
using this specification.

These features are: arbitrary contiguous concatenation, flexible 
arbitrary contiguous concatenation and transparency. They have been
addressed in the relevant sections of this specification.

---

With the added text, everything gets our agreement.

Regards,
Dimitri. 







> "Ong, Lyndon" wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> It cannot be "proprietary" in the sense that you still need at least 2
> sets of people to implement it,
> if only 1 person implements it that will cause it to be removed.  You
> could argue that this may lead to a
> feature that is weak and not useful because only a few implement it
> (and of course this NEVER
> happens with ITU-T specs ;o) but not that it is proprietary as in 1
> vendor only.
> 
> Marking the document to show where something is not (currently!) in
> the ITU standard seems like
> a fair solution, and we can put this discussion to bed.  If on the
> other hand there is a technical
> concern, this should be expressed.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Lyndon
> 
>      -----Original Message-----
>      From: Guo-Qiang Wang [mailto:guoqiang@nortelnetworks.com]
>      Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 7:31 AM
>      To: 'Maarten Vissers'; Dimitri Papadimitriou
>      Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; ip-optical@lists.bell-labs.com;
>      q11/15; t1x1.5
>      Subject: RE: [IP-Optical] Re: Proposed text for the
>      concatenation
> 
>      Maarten,
>        I agree with your opinion not putting proprietary stuff
>      into GMPLS. The purpose
>      of GMPLS is to define an open protocol platform to support
>      public/private optical NNI
>      signaling, NOT proprietary NNI. From interworking
>      perspective, the openness of
>      signaling interface has to be consistent with transport
>      interface.
>        It does not exclude that someone wants piggyback the
>      proprietary over GMPLS.
>      It is O.K as long as they keep this in their cloud and
>      nobody really care what
>      they have inside. But it is not a GMPLS, whatever you call
>      it.
>        There is no need to introduce proprietary into GMPLS.
begin:vcard 
n:Dimitri;Papadimitriou Dimitri
tel;home:+32 2 3434361
tel;work:+32 3 2408491
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.alcatel.com
org:Alcatel Bell;IPO NSG - Antwerpen 
version:2.1
email;internet:dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
title:Optical Networking R&S - Senior Engineer
adr;quoted-printable:;;Francis Wellesplein, 1=0D=0AB-2018 Antwerpen;;;;BELGIUM
fn:Papadimitriou Dimitri
end:vcard