RE: ASON reqts

["Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <dbrungard@att.com>]

I have read this document and it is ready to be a CCAMP WG doc.

The document is very aligned with the ITU work. From an ITU perspective, the document is easy to read. And considering the author list, it's a balanced list of ITU and IETF participants. Following up on Adrian's request, I would be interested to hear from IETF participants. As Kireeti stated, this document is an attempt to bridge the gaps between the IETF and ITU work. Most important for progressing this work is the understanding level/interest by the IETF community involved in GMPLS.

Thanks,
Deborah


-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:afarrel@movaz.com]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 12:03 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: ASON reqts


> I'd like to get a reading on whether this doc is ready to be a
> CCAMP WG document.  Please respond (preferably publicly) with one of:
>  - "I have read this document and it is ready to be a CCAMP WG doc" OR
>  - "I have read this document, and it isn't ready to be a CCAMP doc".

Unless you count the authors by default...
"I have read this document and it is ready to be a CCAMP WG doc"

> Note too that this doc
> is an attempt to bridge some gaps between the IETF and the ITU-T,
> and as such is fairly important.  It would be useful to give an
> update on its status at the interim T1X1 meeting in June.

In the light of which, we would be *very* pleased to have comments from people
who participate in the ITU-T work. From my perspective I would like to know...

- Does this draft represent a fair picture of the ASON requirements?
   - Has it left anything out?
   - Has it made up requirements that aren't there?
   - Does it give the right precedence to the requirements?

- Does the draft give the right level of background without overly restating
   material that is in the ITU documents?

Thanks,
Adrian