RE: ASON reqts

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

Eve,

I read Steve's e-mail very carefully, but I didn't see 'domain' mentioned
once.

Thanks,

John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Varma, Eve L (Eve) [mailto:evarma@lucent.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 6:59 AM
> To: John Drake; Varma, Eve L (Eve); 'Ong, Lyndon'; 'Adrian Farrel';
> Jonathan Sadler
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: ASON reqts
> 
> 
> Please see Steve's email.
> 
> Eve
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Drake [mailto:jdrake@calient.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 9:56 AM
> To: 'Varma, Eve L (Eve)'; 'Ong, Lyndon'; 'Adrian Farrel'; Jonathan
> Sadler
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: ASON reqts
> 
> 
> Eve,
> 
> I am having trouble parsing your e-mail.
> 
> I thought my previous e-mail was stating what was, to use
> Yakov's phrase, "obvious to the informed reader".
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Varma, Eve L (Eve) [mailto:evarma@lucent.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 6:47 AM
> > To: John Drake; Varma, Eve L (Eve); 'Ong, Lyndon'; 'Adrian Farrel';
> > Jonathan Sadler
> > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: ASON reqts
> > 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Then the purpose of the reqts. draft is not explaining ITU-T 
> > requirements for
> > ASON in an IETF friendly way.
> > 
> > Eve
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Drake [mailto:jdrake@calient.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 9:42 AM
> > To: 'Varma, Eve L (Eve)'; 'Ong, Lyndon'; 'Adrian Farrel'; Jonathan
> > Sadler
> > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: ASON reqts
> > 
> > 
> > Eve,
> > 
> > Let me try again.  We are talking about the support of ASON in GMPLS
> > networks, and
> > we are trying to identify the ASON requirements on GMPLS signalling
> > (RSVP-TE).  By
> > definition, the E-NNI/I-NNI in a GMPLS network will be 
> > RSVP-TE (with IP
> > addressing).
> > If the signalling protocol within a domain is also RSVP-TE 
> > then the only
> > thing a
> > domain boundary node will do is modify the RSVP signalling 
> > messages subject
> > to local
> > policy.
> > 
> > If the signalling protocol within a domain is not RSVP-TE, 
> > then a domain
> > boundary
> > node for such a domain will have to build an interworking 
> > function between
> > its
> > signalling protocol and RSVP-TE.  This is not within the 
> > scope of this work.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Varma, Eve L (Eve) [mailto:evarma@lucent.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 5:27 AM
> > > To: John Drake; 'Ong, Lyndon'; 'Adrian Farrel'; Jonathan Sadler
> > > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > > Subject: RE: ASON reqts
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 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
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
>