I have read the requirements draft (and most of this thread) and tend to agree with Stephen T. that the problem is not entirely clear. However, for the purpose of dialogue between standards bodies, having a CCAMP WG document to liaise is helpful. In that regard I fine with it progressing to a CCAMP WG document.
One major technical comment I have is that the ASON addressing requirements aren't fully represented. For example, "G.8080 defines a UNI Transport Resource Addresses for the bearer links at the UNI reference point" (from G.7713.2 and G.7713.3). This is important for ASON services. Also, reference points and call segments are missing. I would hope these can be discussed between CCAMP and SG15. Hence a liaison would be helpful.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Trowbridge [mailto:sjtrowbridge@lucent.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 11:59
To: John Drake
Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; Wijnen, Bert (Bert); ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: ASON reqts
John,
I still think it is better to argue it out now and reach agreement on what problem we are trying to solve.
If we accept this as a WG draft without doing this, we seem to be accepting that we do have SOME problem to solve, and then arguing later on what it was. Regards, Steve
John Drake wrote:
>
> Regardless of what we do now, I'm sure there will be lots of arguments
> later.
>
<snip>