SONET/SDH label agreement?

[Maarten Vissers <mvissers@lucent.com>]

Vijay, Kireeti,

Almost two months ago we met in a small team to address the issues hindering the
completion of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh and
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions. 
When this meeting ended, I was convinced we had reached agreement on the way to
continue:

- move "Appendix 1 - Signal Type Values Extension For Group Signals" from the
sonet-sdh document to the sonet-sdh-extensions document;

- modify the sonet-sdh document such that the SDH traffic parameters and label
will be used for SONET signals for which there exists an identical SDH signal.
SONET signals for which there is no SDH equivalent will keep using the SONET
specific traffic parameters and label.


Afterwards I noticed that the latter agreement is interpreted in different ways:

A) keep both SONET and SDH specific traffic parameter and label specifications
in the sonet-sdh document, and let the equipment manufacturer and/or operator
choose if the traffic parameters and label for a SONET signal (with identical
SDH signal) will use the SONET specification or the SDH specification. This
results in a "double coding" scheme for SONET signals.

B) modify the sonet-sdh document such that there is one set of traffic
parameters and label for each SONET signal. For those SONET signals with
identical SDH signal (i.e. all SONET signals except VT-3) only the SDH traffic
parameters and label will be specified. For those SONET signals that do not have
an SDH equivalent (i.e. VT-3) the SONET traffic parameters and label will be
specified. This results in a "single coding" scheme for SONET signals.

This dual interpretation is again hindering the completion of the sonet-sdh
document.


Note that interpretation B) sufficiently meets the request from ITU-T SG15 as
laid down in the its communications statement and as such was an acceptable
compromise for me.
ftp://sg15opticalt:otxchange@ftp.itu.int/tsg15opticaltransport/COMMUNICATIONS/ccamp/IETF_ccamp_sdhgroup.html
(note -  I can't find this document on the IETF web site anymore)
Interpretation A) will at the best require two coding schemes to be supported in
each equipment, and at the worst will cause interworking problems. It doesn't
meet the request from ITU-T SG15. If I would have been aware of this
interpretation, I would not have agreed with it.


May I ask you for your understanding/interpretation on this matter.


Regards,

Maarten
begin:vcard 
n:Vissers;Maarten
tel;cell:+31 62 061 3945
tel;fax:+31 35 687 5976
tel;home:+31 35 526 5463
tel;work:+31 35 687 4270
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Optical Network Group;Lucent Technologies Nederland
version:2.1
email;internet:mvissers@lucent.com
title:Consulting Member of Technical Staff
adr;quoted-printable:;;Botterstraat 45=0D=0A=0D=0A;1271 XL Huizen;;;The Netherlands
fn:Maarten Vissers
end:vcard