Re: ASON reqts - Moving on?

["Adrian Farrel" <afarrel@movaz.com>]

Thanks Kireeti,

> | 5. Those who think that ITU-T didn't get the requirements right, so we
> |    need to look at everything from scratch.
>
> This is explicitly *not* the intent.  A requirement goes into this
> document iff:
>   (a) the ITU-T says, "Yes, that's a requirement for ASON signaling"; and
>   (b) CCAMP and the ITU-T agree that GMPLS doesn't meet it.
>
> Requirements that are already met MAY be documented, but it is not a
> goal to capture all ASON requirements.

I agree with your statement of non-goal.

I would like to err on the side of documenting requirements that are already
met. It is much clearer that way and opens up (and so puts to bed firmly) any
debate about whether GMPLS *does* already meet the requirements.

Cheers,
Adrian