Zafar,
I agree with you. I think this has to be
an iterative process and I would expect the DT to make sure the requirements from
ITU are considered and fully understood.
Echoing Wesam’s
and Steve’s comments, G.7715 as well as G.7715.1 were co-edited by major
carriers with strong involvement from a number of experts representing
equipment vendors at ITU-T, some of which will also be part of the Design Team.
I believe there is room for the DT and CCAMP to work with ITU to further
clarify, if required, any of the ASON routing requirements.
Luis
-----Original Message-----
From: Zafar Ali
[mailto:zali@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003
10:03 AM
To: Kireeti Kompella
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: ASON Routing
Requirements to WG doc
Hi Kireeti,
I understand that the requirements that fall out of the scope of ITU-T
recommendations are NOT part of this document/ work. However, I would like to
understand some of the requirements in the document a little better. Specifically,
when the document mentions that “- support multiple hierarchical
levels”, my question how many level of hierarchy is implied here?
Similarly, when a requirement like, “- support architectural evolution in
terms of the number of levels of hierarchies, aggregation and segmentation of
(control ?) domains” is stated, I would like to again understand the
notion of “levels of hierarchies”.
In short, I think there are a lots of TBD’s in the document that DT will
be closing with ITU. I would like to see this as an “interactive”
process, rather than something like "here are the requirements,
period". I think for the sake of prioritization and for providing
cross-organization feedback, it will be very important to have some "room"
for DT and ccamp.
Thanks
Regards… Zafar
=================================================================
Zafar Ali, Ph. D.
100 South Main St. #200,
Technical Leader,
Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USA.
Cisco Systems.
(734) 276-2459.
=================================================================
At 07:42 PM 11/16/2003 -0800, Kireeti Kompella wrote:
Hi Zafar,
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003, Zafar Ali wrote:
Thanks for your input!
> Deborah made a very good point about goals of the design team during the
WG
> meeting. Specifically, she mentioned that the DT will work closely with
ITU
> to understand the requirements.
Excellent.
> I would really like to make sure that the
> requirements are coming from the service providers
If you read the design team charter, you'll see that the requirements
come from the ITU, and that requirements *not* from the ITU have no
place, especially since the document is entitled "ASON Routing
Requirements". However, the assumption is that the ITU got their
input from service providers (or carriers).
> and not from specific
> implementations. So, I would like to see more activity from the DT in
> closing on the requirements in the light of the needs of service
providers,
> before agreeing to the notion.
Requirements from specific implementations and requirements that the
DT 'closes on ... [from] service providers' are not relevant in this
particular document. If there is a 'further requirements for GMPLS
routing', your concerns would be very relevant and valuable.
However, for this document, given the charter of the design team, I
would ask you to reconsider.
Thanks,
Kireeti.
-------