RE: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF

[Sasha Vainshtein <Sasha@AXERRA.com>]

Hi Kireeti,
My two cents  is (1).

With best regards,
                                   Sasha Vainshtein
email:     sasha@axerra.com <mailto:sasha@axerra.com> 
tel:       +972-3-7659993 (office)
           +972-8-9254948 (res.)
           +972-58-674833 (cell.)
 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 2:11 AM
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Mannie, Eric; 'mvissers@lucent.com'; 'vijay@umbc.edu'; 
> ccamp-wg; 'sob@harvard.edu'
> Subject: RE: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> 
> > Guys... I have seen to much of this. I have asked Kireeti
> > EXPLICITLY to try and CALL FOR or DECLARE CONSENSUS on the
> > WG mailing list. I do NOT want another 500 emails going back
> > and forth on this issue. We need to approach this pragmatically.
> > 
> > - WG Chair(s) try to get (rough) CONSENSUS CALLED OUT on the 
> >   WG mailing list on what exactly we agreed in SLC. That will
> >   help to prepare a response to ITU-T as well
> 
> First off, I should apologize for letting this go on unchecked.
> 
> Second, I should make it known to the WG as a whole that there was
> a discussion of this issue at SLC among several folks directly
> involved, the ADs and the chairs.  I thought we had achieved
> consensus, but now it seems not.
> 
> Here's what I thought we had agreed:
> 
> 1) There is a document in the ITU that defines a *single* 
> standard that
>    encompasses both SONET and SDH -- almost.  There are a few signals
>    that are in SONET but not in SDH; it was believed that the 
> only such
>    signal was VC-3.  Also, there are "legacy" implementations of SONET
>    that do not match the ITU document.
> 
> 2) Thus, it was agreed (to my recollection) that both the SONET and
>    SDH label formats will be retained, with wording that says that
>    whenever possible, the SDH equivalent should be used.  This covers
>    both the cases of SONET signals that don't have SDH equivalents,
>    and legacy equipment.
> 
> It is *not* the IETF's intention to promote an artificial separation
> between SONET and SDH.  Nor is it the intent to promote as standard
> work that is now "pre-standard".
> 
> However, it *is* the IETF's goal to be able to set up paths across
> SONET and SDH networks, and to be pragmatic about this.  This was
> the spirit in which an agreement was forged -- or so I thought.  In
> retrospect, it would have been wise to go one step further and
> decide the actual words.
> 
> So, here we are again, arguing over this.  Let's follow the AD's
> suggestion and look for consensus in the WG.
> 
> 1) Do you think we should have just a single set of traffic parameters
>    and label values for SDH, and none for SONET?
> or
> 2) Do you think we should have one for SONET and one for SDH, with
>    the proviso that, if an SDH equivalent is available, one SHOULD
>    use the SDH equivalent?
> or
> 3) Do you think we should have one for SONET and one for SDH, with
>    the proviso that, if an SDH equivalent is available, one MUST
>    use the SDH equivalent?
> 
> (in the above, SHOULD and MUST are to be interpreted as in RFC 2119.)
> 
> PLEASE respond with just (1), (2) or (3), and avoid long diatribes!
> 
> Feedback is welcome from *all* those interested in the CCAMP WG.
> Also, what we are looking for is rough consensus, not votes.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kireeti.
> 
>