[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

To: "Mannie, Eric" <Eric.Mannie@ebone.com>
Subject: Re: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF
From: Stephen Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 08:26:36 -0700
Cc: "'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, ccamp-wg <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Organization: Lucent Technologies
References: <D52BF6463BA3D311BFA700508B63C5AA06B40778@brumsgpnt01.gtsgroup.com>

Eric,

"Mannie, Eric" wrote:
snip
> 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 ?
Not at all. The document is intended for use in both markets. To be "reader-
friendly" in both markets, it should have dual vocabulary. The objection is
to dual CODING for identical constructs. The dual vocabulary (e.g.,
SDH/SONET, VC-11/VT1.5, VC-12/VT2, VC-4/STS-3c) is useful since we have
readers who speak different "languages".
Regards,
Steve

References:
- RE: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF
  - From: "Mannie, Eric" <Eric.Mannie@ebone.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Simple solution to terminate the discussion about SONET versus SDH
Next by Date: RE: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF - Not a Vote!
Previous by thread: RE: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF
Next by thread: RE: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread