Re: ASON reqts - Moving on?

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

On Wed, 14 May 2003, Adrian Farrel wrote:

> Can we back off a bit and just look at the ASON requirements draft?

Thanks, Adrian.

> Having had a quick chat with a couple of the authors (not all) we are in
> agreement that this draft is to state clearly the requirements of the ASON
> architecture as applicable to GMPLS signaling within the context of the IETF.

Okay.

> The motives are to
> - make those requirements accessible to the IETF community
>    in a form and format with which they are familiar

I would encourage adding "terminology" to the above, if the document
doesn't already do so.

> - provide a basis for determining whether current protocol
>   solutions fully address the requirements.

Okay: so this document is _setting the stage_ for a meaningful discussion
of solutions.  I'll just note that we have a precedent in CCAMP for this:
there were no requirements for OLI until there was (vigorous) debate on
the relative merits of two different solutions.  The emergence of a reqts
doc helped clarify issues.

> The second point is the one that might give rise to debate in the future. That
> is, once the requirements have been exposed in a way we understand, we may
> discover that the existing work is exemplary or we may determine there are holes
> to be plugged.

Sounds fine.

> Views on this are premature until the requirements draft is solid
> (although the prematurity of views will in no way prevent them from being
> expressed).

Too true.

> Kireeti, what are the next steps?

Let's see what the WG says about ASON reqts first.

Kireeti.