RE: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

Gert,

I'm sorry, I was teasing.  I was saying that if the IETF didn't like certain
features of the G.709 transport plane, following Stephen's argument, it
shouldn't feel constrained about changing them.  

I wasn't talking about your draft, which I think is a very good piece of
work.

Thanks,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gert Grammel [mailto:Gert.Grammel@alcatel.de]
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 4:10 AM
> To: John Drake
> Cc: 'Kireeti Kompella'; Stephen Trowbridge; ccamp@ops.ietf.org;
> mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
> 
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> I am not sure if I've got your point here about G.709 and the 
> way it is linked
> to the liason stuff. ITU-T defined G.709 as another circuit 
> technology to
> transport bits from A to B. It is similar to SDH/SONET and 
> falls into the ASON
> scope. Applying GMPLS on G.709 is straight forward and I am 
> not aware of any
> specific open issues here.
> In SDH/SONET some of the involved guys were trying to include 
> non-standard
> SDH/SONET features in the ietf-draft, meaning those not 
> explicitly mentioned in
> G.707. This caused of course a lot of friction. In contrast 
> to that, the G.709
> authors team is committed to remove everything from
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-g70
> 9-03.txt which is
> not covered by G.709. In this sense it has the potential to 
> become a boiler
> plate for tight collaboration.
> So why do you think this work should be depreciated in CCAMP?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Gert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Drake wrote:
> 
> > Kireeti,
> >
> > There's always been a few things that I didn't like about 
> G.709, so maybe we
> > can just go ahead and deprecate them in CCAMP.  Then we can 
> figure this
> > liason stuff and tell the ITU about it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > John
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 3:04 PM
> > > To: Stephen Trowbridge
> > > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; mpls@UU.NET
> > > Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Steve,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, Stephen Trowbridge wrote:
> > >
> > > > If they decide not to be involved and the other SDO 
> goes ahead with
> > > > developing their own solution, they don't need to bless the
> > > extension,
> > > > or even like it, but they do need to accept it.
> > >
> > > Going back to the examples that Deborah brought up: what 
> if other SDOs
> > > produced variants of SDH -- would you say that the ITU "do need to
> > > accept it"?
> > >
> > > Kireeti.
> > >
> 
> --
> Alcatel Optical Network Division    Gert Grammel
> Network Strategy                    phone: +49 711 821 47368
> Lorenzstrasse 10                    fax: +49 711 821 43169
> D-70435 Stuttgart                   mailto:Gert.Grammel@alcatel.de
> 
>