RE: ASON reqts

["Varma, Eve L (Eve)" <evarma@lucent.com>]

Hi,

Yes, I saw the reference.  But that seems to be the extent of
it in actual discussions. 

Best regards,
Eve

-----Original Message-----
From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
[mailto:Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 8:27 AM
To: Varma, Eve L (Eve)
Cc: 'Adrian Farrel'; Stephen Trowbridge; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: ASON reqts


eve, please take a closer look at the references:

"4. Requirements for Extending Applicability of GMPLS to ASON

    The applicability statements regarding how the GMPLS suite of
    protocols may be applied to the ASON architecture can be found in
    [IPO-ASON] and [IPO-REQS].

[...]

    [IPO-REQS]     Y.Xue (Editor) et al., "Optical Network Service
                   Requirements," Work in progress, draft-ietf-ipo-
                   carrier-requirements-05.txt."


thanks,
- dimitri.


Varma, Eve L (Eve) wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I concur with Zhi that the document is not yet ready to be a WG document.
> 
> Regarding the explanation of requirements, I am still extremely puzzled as
> to why the IPO requirements document is not being cited as a source of
> explanation for a number of ASON-related items.  It's almost as though it never existed.
> 
> Best regards,
> Eve
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:afarrel@movaz.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 6:53 PM
> To: Stephen Trowbridge; 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.
> 
> 
> Steve,
> As one of the authors this is not my goal.
> It may transpire that this is a necessity, but it is not a goal.
> I apologise if anything I said gave rise to the false impression you have
> garnered.
> 
> One of the problems from an IETF-participant viewpoint is/was that the
> requirements were not clear to me. If they weren't clear to me this may because
> - they were not readily accessible to me within the IETF
> - they were not couched in terms and formats with which I am familiar
> - I am a dunderhead.
> 
> Only with the requirements clearly stated (in a form I can grok) is it possible
> for me to decide whether existing solutions are adequate.
> 
> So the requirements draft is written and ITU-aware people are asked to comment
> on whether this seems to them a fair representation of the requirements coming
> out of the ITU.
> 
> OK up to this point?
> 
> The next step, is the analysis of whether the requirements have already been
> met.
> A subsequent draft has been written to identify how the signaling requirements
> are or are not met by existing protocols :
> draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason-00.txt
> Where they are already met, the draft simply points out to another draft.
> Where they are not met, the draft explains the short-comings and offers
> solutions.
> 
> This *second* draft I would expect to be the one that causes heart-burn. It is
> with the second draft that we can take issue - does it solve the problems? is it
> correct when it says other solutions are broken? etc.  But the second draft is
> still in an early stage and is not being proposed for WG adoption (although we
> would still welcome comments on it).
> 
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> Cannot answer this without an agreement on the requirements.
> 
> 
>>- Do you think that even G.7713.2 does not meet the requirements?
> 
> 
> Ditto.
> 
> 
>>  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.
> 
> 
> It would certainly make sense to take the ASON reqts draft to ITU-T to formally
> request that they confirm that it is a full documentation of the requirements. I
> don't suppose Kireeti can do this unless the draft is a WG draft.
> 
> 
>>If we made a mistake, lets fix it, but lets NOT start proliferating
>>ASON extensions take 2; ASON extensions take 3; ...
> 
> 
> Depends on the scale of the mistake?
> Can we do the analysis step by step and discover what (if anything) needs to be
> done?
> First step - check we're all in synch on the requirements.
> 
> Cheers,
> Adrian
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Papadimitriou Dimitri
E-mail : dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Private: http://www.rc.bel.alcatel.be/~papadimd/index.html
E-mail : dpapadimitriou@psg.com
Public : http://psg.com/~dpapadimitriou/
Address: Fr. Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone  : +32 3 240-8491