[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ASON reqts
Bert & John,
I think this document has nothing to do with the issue Bert
mentioned. This was a protocol issue, not a requirements issue.
A decision was made to leave the message out of 3474 with the
belief that:
- The protocol works without it; and
- The presence of the message violates the protocol.
The appropriate next step here would be a liaison back to ITU-T
explaining what was done and why, and if the ITU-T agrees with
the reasoning, they can align their protocol document (in this
case, G.7713.2).
Back to Bert's original questions:
> > > > - is there or do we see any conflict?
- As Zhi said, this is not (yet) fully aligned with ITU-T requirements
and should not be advanced to a WG document until it is. However, before
we do, I think we need to understand why this is necessary - see below.
> > > > - are we duplicating some work?
- Almost certainly. If we take the kind of alignment with ITU-T
requirements that Zhi mentions as a "gate" for progressing this, then
what is in this document that is different from G.8080 and G.7713 and
why do we need this in place of a normative reference?
> > > > - what is the purpose of this draft?
Excellent question.
> > > > - is it after the fact documenting of requirements?
If it is, why bother? Also, we already have the requirements (developed
before the protocol) in G.8080 and G.7713.
> > > > - is it getting ITU-T documented requirements in RFC form?
This could be a reasonable goal, if this document is to be an info
track requirements document characterizing G.8080 and G.7713 for
IETF folks in the same way that RFC 3474 does for G.7713.2 and
RFC 3475 does for G.7713.3. But it is hard to understand why producing
an IETF translation of the ITU-T question would be very high priority
when we already have an IETF translation of the answer, but fundamentally
there would be no problem if this were the objective.
> > > > - is it extending ITU-T documented requirements?
I don't think so. If it is, I hope we start with a liaison rather
than trying to extend ITU-T requirements without talking to ITU-T first.
> > > > - is it contrdicting them?
This is my biggest worry. I don't think we should start the process
over again and open the door that we come up with yet another
protocol solution to address the same requirements. Vendors are
already building to G.7713.2, G.7713.3 (and by extension, to
RFC 3473+3474 and RFC 3472+3475). We most definitely should NOT
start a new work item with an objective to develop a new protocol
solution to the same problem.
> > > > - is it meant to be used as communication to ITU?
I haven't seen this proposed, but I think that if the goal is
to capture ITU-T requirements in RFC form, it would be a good
idea to ask ITU-T whether the proposed document accurately
captures their requirements.
/Steve
John Drake wrote:
>
> Bert,
>
> I think so.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
> > -----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.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >