RE: ASON reqts

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

Bert,

I thought that we had a process - the post RFC3474 process.  Why are you
inventing another process on the fly?  Comments inline.

Thanks,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 7:38 AM
> To: Bart.Rousseau@alcatel.be
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: ASON reqts
> 
> 
> AD-hat on.
> 
> Bart writes:
> > 
> > 
> > Stephen,
> > 
> > I think the point was rather to go back to
> > just a single GMPLS spec instead of two (let alone three) 
> variants...
> > 
> If that is the case, and if we want to do that in IETF CCAMP 
> (not sure it is part of the current CCAMP charter),
> then it seems to me that we (CCAMP) should excercise these steps:
> 
> - send some liason to ITU-T SG 15 to explain that we found that
>   there seems to be a GMPLS (for IETF) and a GMPLS-ASON standard

Based upon Stephen's e-mails, I think the ITU is well aware of this.

> - that we think that this is NOT goodness, and that we regret that
>   we did send the ASON people away a few years back and did not
>   closely follow their work in ITU

This isn't correct.  Please review the ccamp minutes from Yokohama.

> - that we now believe that we should have worked better together,
> - that we would like to explore ways to try and mrege the two
>   solution back into one common solution

See above.

> 
> And then await the response and hope ITU will agree and then see
> how the work can be organized.
> 
> > 
> > Bart
> > 
> Bert
>