Dieter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 4:11 PM
> 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.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
V
+---------------+ Dieter Beller
| A L C A T E L | Alcatel Optics
Group
+---------------+ Terrestrial Networks
Division
Dept. US/EA3
Alcatel SEL AG
Lorenzstrasse 10
D-70435 Stuttgart, Germany
Phone: +49 711 821-43125
Fax: +49 711 821-42303
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
begin:vcard n:Beller;Dieter tel;fax:+49 711 821 - 42303 tel;work:+49 711 821 - 43125 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:Alcatel - Optics Group - Terrestrial Networks Division;US/EA3 version:2.1 email;internet:D.Beller@alcatel.de adr;quoted-printable:;;Alcatel SEL AG,=0D=0ALorenzstrasse 10;Stuttgart;;70435;Germany fn:Beller, Dieter end:vcard