RE: ASON reqts

["Ong, Lyndon" <LyOng@Ciena.com>]

Hi Bert,

IMHO, the requirements draft identifies a number of
requirements for ASON that went into the definition of
RFC3474 (with the exception of crankback, which has
been worked separately), so it is not in conflict with
the work in 3474.  I don't see this as being tied to
"fixing" the extensions in 3474, which in my view is
not necessary. 

Some of the mailing list discussion revolved around
requirements such as call and connection separation, 
and it would be helpful to see if there is actually 
agreement to support this. 

Other complaints were about the process that went into
creating 3474, and hopefully the requirements document
will help address those concerns as well.

Lastly, the requirements draft has obviously been
condensed down to some specific requirements with
impact on signaling.  There may be changes or
additions as we go along (the ability to identify
separately a transport node, connection controller and routing
controller might be one to consider).

Cheers,

Lyndon


-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 1:27 PM
To: John Drake; Kireeti Kompella; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: ASON reqts


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.
> > > 
> > 
>