RE: ASON reqts

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

Hi Deborah,

I kind of agree and disagree...

The requirements draft attempts to summarize 8080 specifically
regarding its impacts on signaling, so it does not repeat 8080
but may of course not be complete.

Regarding the IETF GMPLS experts, that seems a bit unfair, the
ITU work was naturally influenced by who was there at the meeting;
this included a number of folks who are also very active at IETF
and implemented GMPLS protocols.

I still think the issue that most people had with RFC 3474 was
that process-wise they would rather that it had gone through the
ccamp group or alternatively asked for FCFS codepoints...

Cheers,

Lyndon

-----Original Message-----
From: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS [mailto:dbrungard@att.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 12:20 PM
To: Varma, Eve L (Eve); John Drake; Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: ASON reqts


The intention of gmpls-ason-reqs is not to repeat G8080. And it is not about G7713.2. It is to address GMPLS support of G8080. If it becomes a WG document, any/all comments are welcome. Individuals' participation will depend on company interests. We can not "require" anyone to participate. This is not a hobby for most of us;-)

This email is more appropriate as a private exchange - naming of individuals severely lacks in recognition of the many who contribute in the T1X1/ITU and the IETF work. As T1X1.5 chair/vice chair for many years, including the birth of ASON, I wish I could say, that I was too young too remember, but I was there, actually Malcolm could say he was too young;-). And I am not the primary player for T1X1.5 work, there are no primary players, it is a committee representing companies. One could ask, why were none of the IETF GMPLS experts asked to participate in the ITU work?

We are trying to progress an IETF draft on GMPLS support of ASON. I am a carrier interested in GMPLS. None of us are writing resumes. Let's progress with specific comments on the drafts.

Deborah