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

[Lou Berger <lberger@movaz.com>]

(4) or if not approved, (2).

Lou

At 07:39 AM 2/26/2002, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:

>If people want to express their support for this 4th option
>then that is fine with me. WG chair(s) do you agree too
>(don't want to step on your toes or sit in your chair).
>
>Bert
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mannie, Eric 
> [<mailto:Eric.Mannie@ebone.com>mailto:Eric.Mannie@ebone.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:32 AM
> > To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; ccamp-wg
> > Subject: RE: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF
> >
> >
> > Hello Bert and all,
> >
> > One question is missing:
> >
> > 4) Do you think we should have just a single set of traffic
> > parameters and
> > label format (values) for both SDH and SONET.
> >
> > In 1) "none for SONET" assumes that SONET doesn't exist
> > anymore. Note also
> > that the traffic parameters are already identical, the only
> > difference is
> > about the label. As editor of these drafts I would like at
> > least to see the
> > right questions asked on the mailing list.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) 
> [<mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com>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.
> >