RE: ASON reqts

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

I know that some people had issues with the way that ITU-T
had defined the RSVP-TE extensions for ASON. In fact there
was/is a claim that it is broken. So we removed the offending
text from the RFC3474. 

The next thing we were going to do (as far as I understood it)
is to document why we (or some of us in IETF) think that the
ITU-T solution is broken, potentially with suggested fixes.
That we would send to ITU-T SG15.

Is this the first step of that process?

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Drake [mailto:jdrake@calient.net]
> Sent: maandag 12 mei 2003 22:24
> To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; Kireeti Kompella; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: ASON reqts
> 
> 
> 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.
> > > 
> > 
>