RE: Moving right along ...

["Brungard, Deborah A, ALCTA" <dbrungard@att.com>]

Eric,

I also have commented on this multiple times. My previous comments were that
the labels are inaccurate (e.g. ITU SDH supports both SONET (AU-3 and AU-4)
and ETSI SDH (AU-4)) and they introduce an unnecessary complexity as they
are not aligned with the transport plane functionality. There already exists
lots of mis-information on SDH/SONET interworking - let's not add to it for
supporting GMPLS. For a carrier, this introduces unnecessary operational
complexity. I have not seen any discussion of my comments.

Can you please share with us your concerns as it is difficult to discuss
technical issues if they are not identified.

Deborah Brungard
AT&T

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Maarten Vissers [SMTP:mvissers@lucent.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, October 18, 2001 4:42 PM
> To:	Mannie, Eric
> Cc:	'Heiles Juergen'; 'Kireeti Kompella'; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject:	Re: Moving right along ...
> 
> Eric,
> 
> > At this very late stage, since this not bringing any new functionality,
> and
> > since the label structure is very stable since a long time, I would
> prefer
> > not to restart a long technical discussion to change and re-validate the
> > draft.
> 
> This label issue is brought up many months ago already and strongly
> supported by
> multiple people. So far it has been rejected by you, and thus not
> included. The
> label structure isn't stable as such since a long time... there was simply
> a
> rejection to properly adapt it.
> 
> For me and other SDH/SONET folks it is of utmost importance to see SDH and
> SONET
> be treated similarly, as also reflected in the ITU-T and T1 specifications
> for
> these technologies. In my opinion the current text in the draft must be
> adapted
> as proposed by Juergen (and by me and others in the past as well).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Maarten << File: Card for Maarten Vissers >>