RE: ITU Liaison regarding ASON Requirements Design Team

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

Hi Lyndon,

Thanks for the clarifications. I think you've answered
the question I had (comments in-line).

Regards,
-Vishal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
> Behalf Of Ong, Lyndon
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 2:28 PM
> To: 'v.sharma@ieee.org'; Brungard, Deborah A; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: ITU Liaison regarding ASON Requirements Design Team
> 
> 
> Hi Vishal,
> 
> I think you can interpret the statement in a couple of ways:
> -- first as a guideline to the Design Team to work based on
> the routing requirements defined in Question 12 and 14 and
> resist the temptation to insert new ones

Agreed, this is what I understood.

> -- second as a recognition that the work is in fact still in
> progress at ITU - G.8080 and G.7715 are approved but other
> specifications and amendments (for example, G.7715.1) may
> affect this that are not yet complete.  G.7715.1 is scheduled
> for consent at this October meeting of SG 15 providing that
> it is ready for approval.  If 7715.1 (requirements
> for link state routing) is not ready I would hope that the
> design team should continue refining its conclusions as the
> work in ITU proceeds.  

Great, thanks. This is the part I wasn't so clear about. I now
understand the the SG15 output itself is evolving (even
though some big portions are largely decided), and that
the ASON DT will be tracking it.

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vishal Sharma [mailto:v.sharma@ieee.org]
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 6:41 PM
> To: Brungard, Deborah A; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: ITU Liaison regarding ASON Requirements Design Team
> 
> 
> Deborah,
> 
> The liason statement looks good. 
> 
> A quick clarification, however.
> 
> The statement reads:
> "... no requirement will be considered in this document that is not 
> an ASON routing requirement (as decided by those working on 
> Questions 12 and 14 of Study Group 15)."
> 
> The parenthetical phrase above seems to suggest that the 
> ASON routing requirements within the ITU-T are themselves not fully 
> finalized yet.
> 
> Is there some doubt about what the exact ASON routing requirements
> are? And, are they not clearly specified and agreed to by SG15 yet. 
> 
> If so, how does the DT hope to make its recommendations?
> 
> Thanks,
> -Vishal 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On
> > Behalf Of Brungard, Deborah A
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 1:22 PM
> > To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Cc: kireeti@juniper.net
> > Subject: ITU Liaison regarding ASON Requirements Design Team
> > 
> > 
> > CCAMP,
> > 
> > The design team proposes the following ITU-T liaison on the 
> > creation of the ASON Routing Requirements DT and it's charter. We 
> > would like to request consensus from CCAMP for forwarding this 
> > liaison to ITU-T SG15. The next meeting of SG15 is Oct. 21-31. We 
> > would like to request comments by October 21 to allow for this 
> > liaison to be forwarded next week to SG15 (cc to Q12/15 
> > Rapporteur, Malcolm Betts, betts01@nortelnetworks.com and Q14/15 
> > Rapporteur, Kam Lam, hklam@lucent.com).
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Deborah
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -------------------------------------
> > We would like to inform Q12/15 and Q14/15 that IETF CCAMP WG has 
> > initiated a Design Team on GMPLS ASON Routing Requirements. The 
> > GMPLS ASON Routing Requirements Design Team's Charter is as follows:
> > 
> > "To understand the requirements for ASON routing so as to capture 
> > what's missing from current CCAMP work in a "GMPLS ASON Routing 
> > Requirements" document.  The ground rules are the same as for 
> > ASON signaling requirements: no requirement will be considered in 
> > this document that is not an ASON routing requirement (as decided 
> > by those working on Questions 12 and 14 of Study Group 15).  
> > Requirements should be justified briefly and prioritized. If 
> > needed, a section on terminology should be included. No attempt 
> > should be made in this document to do protocol design or suggest 
> > protocol extensions."
> > 
> > We expect to liaison to you a draft of the above WG document 
> > during Nov. 2003. We wish to work with you cooperatively on this 
> > document and we would appreciate your assistance in reviewing 
> this draft.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>