RE: ASON reqts

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

Bert,

I thought that the post 3474/3475 process started with a requirements
document.

Thanks,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 1:14 PM
> To: Kireeti Kompella; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: ASON reqts
> 
> 
> So if we look at RFCs 3474/3475 and the ITU-T documents 
> that those 2 RFCs point to, then I wonder:
> - is there or do we see any conflict?
> - are we duplicating some work?
> - what is the purpose of this draft?
>   - is it after the fact documenting of requirements?
>   - is it getting ITU-T documented requirements in RFC form?
>   - is it extending ITU-T documented requirements?
>   - is it contrdicting them?
>   - is it meant to be used as communication to ITU?
> 
> Just wondering what is happening here.
> 
> Thanks,
> Bert 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
> > Sent: maandag 12 mei 2003 17:25
> > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: ASON reqts
> > 
> > 
> > Hi All,
> > 
> > On Fri, 2 May 2003, Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> > 
> > > To take things one at a time, it would be very useful to 
> > read and comment
> > > on the ASON reqts draft, as this was deemed tremendously 
> > important, and
> > > a rich source of misunderstanding and cross-talk; and 
> > coming to a common
> > > understanding over this should help get the IETF and the 
> ITU working
> > > together.
> > 
> > I haven't seen many comments, so the assumption is either that no
> > one cares, or that folks have read it and have no issues.
> > 
> > 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".
> > 
> > Note that if there aren't enough responses, the default 
> assumption is
> > that the document is either not of interest or not ready, and in
> > either case will not become 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.
> > 
> > Please get your responses in by COB Friday May 16th.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Kireeti.
> > 
>