RE: ASON reqts

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

Hi Folks,

I'm hoping that the requirements draft does not imply that 
we will now define an alternative to 3474, that was not my
intention when participating in the draft.  I see no reason
to rethink what was done in 3474, which has now been 
implemented and tested by a number of participants.

It would be good to understand if people in the group are
interested in supporting ASON, however, which seemed to be
a controversial issue on the mailing list a while back.
Also, as Stephen points out, it would be good to get
feedback from ITU SG 15 on the draft, as it does represent
only the authors' interpretation of ASON requirements and
may not be complete.

Cheers,

Lyndon

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Trowbridge [mailto:sjtrowbridge@lucent.com]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 3:23 PM
To: John Drake
Cc: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; Kireeti Kompella; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: ASON reqts


John,
Ahhhh....
This sounds like a whole new can of worms. The goal therefore does
seem to be to develop yet another protocol solution, and I think
we need to be VERY careful before taking this kind of step.

Your assertion now seems to be that RFC 3473+3474 does NOT meet the
ASON requirements. If this is the case:
- Does G.7713.2 meet the requirements, and we missed something in
  the translation to RFC 3474? If so, then we need to supercede
  RFC 3474 with a better translation, not start over.

- Do you think that even G.7713.2 does not meet the requirements?
  If you believe this to be the case, it seems like the obvious
  first step would be to inform ITU-T - after all, this is where
  the ASON requirements came from and it makes no sense to start
  a new protocol without fixing (and aligning) G.7713.2.

If we made a mistake, lets fix it, but lets NOT start proliferating
ASON extensions take 2; ASON extensions take 3; ...

Regards,
Steve

John Drake wrote:
> 
> I think that the problem is that RFC 3474, in addition to its technical
> issues, doesn't address all of the ASON requirements.  For example, it does
> not address full call/connection separation.  So we're following the post
> 3474 procees of documenting the ASON requirements relevant to GMPLS
> signalling in order to have a common understanding of what problem is to be
> solved.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Trowbridge [mailto:sjtrowbridge@lucent.com]
> > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 2:27 PM
> > To: John Drake
> > Cc: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; Kireeti Kompella; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >