RE: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF - Not a Vote!

[Sasha Vainshtein <Sasha@AXERRA.com>]

Eric and all,
My understanding of  - and vote for - (1) are based on the 
presumption that SONET is a strict subset of SDH.
AFAIK this is also the ITU-T position.

As a consequence, it is possible to define a unique 
"SDH translation" for each "SONET term" 
(but not vice versa).

IMHO a "dictionary" mapping SONET terms to their SDH equivalents 
could be incorporated (as an Annex?) in the relevant GMPLS 
document(s) for convenience of the SONET-minded readers. This would not
compromise (1) in any way, as the "core" documents could consistently use 
SDH terms.

Hopefully these notes will be helpful.

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: Mannie, Eric [mailto:Eric.Mannie@ebone.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 5:06 PM
> To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; ccamp-wg
> Subject: RE: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF
> 
> 
> 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.
>