RE: ASON reqts

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

Hi,

I strongly disagree.  The concept of control domains is one of the 
key elements of G.8080 Am. 1, and support for such is part of the
requirements.  This makes no statement re proprietary protocols.

Eve

-----Original Message-----
From: John Drake [mailto:jdrake@calient.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 5:36 PM
To: 'Ong, Lyndon'; 'Adrian Farrel'; Jonathan Sadler
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: ASON reqts


Lyndon,

I think it is out of scope.  The only requirement is that a group of one or
more nodes running a proprietary control plane (e.g., OSRP) must appear to
be one or more GMPLS nodes, and this is a requirement on the vendor
implementing the proprietary control plane.

Thanks,

John 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ong, Lyndon [mailto:LyOng@Ciena.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 2:03 PM
> To: 'Adrian Farrel'; Jonathan Sadler
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Ong, Lyndon
> Subject: RE: ASON reqts
> 
> 
> Hi Folks,
> 
> I think one aspect that may not come out clearly in the draft
> is that ASON defines a concept of "control domains" (which is
> included in the terminology section of the draft) and in the
> amendment goes on to say that the structure and protocols used
> in each domain may be different (e.g., centralized control in
> one domain and distributed in another, RSVP in one and non-RSVP
> in another).
> 
> I suggested that this be added to the draft, but we did not
> get agreement on this before we decided to send it out, perhaps
> because it was considered to be out of scope (?).
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Lyndon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>