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

[Tomohiro Otani <otani@kddilabs.jp>]

Dear Kireeti,

We basically support 2), but we may not care it if the operation can be
conducted appropriately.

Regards,

TOMOHIRO OTANI

>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,
>

------------------------------------
Tomohiro Otani
KDDI R&D Laboratories, Inc.
Optical network lab.
2-1-15 Ohara Kamifukuoka Saitama, 356-8502, Japan
TEL: +1-49-278-7357
FAX: +1-49-278-7516
E-mail: otani@kddilabs.jp
------------------------------------