RE: ASON reqts

["Vishal Sharma" <v.sharma@ieee.org>]

Kireeti,

I've been following this discussion for some time now, and would
like to second the proposal you've made below. Namely, that
we have a companion document that covers extensions for routing
as well.

Both documents would then have to be progressed in tandem within
the WG, because, as Ben rightly observed, routing specifications
do influence what is carried in signaling.

Regards,
-Vishal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Kireeti Kompella
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 5:03 PM
> To: Ben Mack-Crane
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: ASON reqts
>
>
> Hi Ben,
>
> On Wed, 14 May 2003, Ben Mack-Crane wrote:
>
> > CCAMPers,
> >
> > Having reviewed the proposed requirements draft, and some of the ensuing
> > e-mail discussion, I would say that
> >
> > "I have read this document, and it isn't ready to be a CCAMP doc"
>
> Thanks for your input (thanks too to all others who've voiced their
> opinion).
>
> > I am principally concerned that routing requirements are not included.
> > While draft's title is encompassing "GMPLS Usage and Extensions for
> > ASON," the abstract limits this to signaling only.
>
> You're right -- this document doesn't address routing (and doesn't
> profess to).  In keeping with other GMPLS work, I think it makes sense
> to have separate signaling and routing documents, be they functional
> specs, protocol details or requirements.  This view appears to be
> shared by the ITU-T as well, from what I understand.
>
> In the light of this, I have a question for you:
>  - In your opinion, should the document under consideration become a
>    CCAMP WG _just for signaling_?  I.e., if we had a companion doc
>    that described the routing requirements for ASON, would that meet
>    your objection?
>
> Thanks,
> Kireeti.
>
>