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

["Mannie, Eric" <Eric.Mannie@ebone.com>]

Hello Bert and Kireeti,

Please could you clarify what means (1):

> 1) Do you think we should have just a single set of traffic parameters
>    and label values for SDH, and none for SONET?

Do you mean that we will remove the terms SONET, the concepts (VT, STS,
etc), and the references from all GMPLS drafts and that GMPLS will have a
reduced scope to SDH only ?

If yes, why ?

Thanks,

Kind regards,

Eric



-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 10:37 AM
To: ccamp-wg
Subject: RE: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF


CCAMP WG members, 

before we start down another many 100s of emails re-discussing
the same topic....

PLEASE express your support for one of the 3 options that Kireeti
posed to the WG. Don't elaborate... just help the WG chair(s) to
figure out the (rough) consensus of the WG. The choices formulated
by Kireeti:

> 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!

Thanks
Bert, speaking as AD who would like to see the WG take 
      a decision on this topic.