[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: ASON Routing Requirements to WG doc
Zafar, Vishal,
Much appreciate the feedback - and the early/early interest in the DT document.
Regardless if the document is agreed to be a WG doc or not, I hope the interaction between ccamp and the DT continues. Send any comments/clarifications via CCAMP or to one of the DT members directly. This iterative dialogue is needed early in the development if we want to quickly progress.
As noted on a previous email, G7715.1 on ASON link state routing requirements was just completed in October. The basis of the work was to be protocol agnostic (PNNI, OSPF, ISIS) and solution-independent, and as we all know that can be a very difficult goal. Much late night drafting in Geneva to complete ;-) For companies also ITU members, G7715.1 is available under the AAP process for comments until Dec 13. And via CCAMP's ASON routing work and the liaison process, CCAMP can cooperatively contribute to future improvements/versions of the document.
Deborah
-----Original Message-----
From: Vishal Sharma [mailto:v.sharma@ieee.org]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 1:05 PM
To: Zafar Ali; Kireeti Kompella
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: ASON Routing Requirements to WG doc
Hi Kireeti, Zafar, et al,
I think the idea of the DT working co-operatively with the ITU-T, and having some room for
the DT (and CCAMP) to iteratively work on the routing requirements is a very good idea.
In fact, this ties back to the comment I had first made when Deborah was drafting the liason
statement on behalf of the WG to send to the ITU-T a few weeks ago. Lyndon had clarified
then that some items in G.7715.1 were themselves "work in progress", so I think this is
the perfect time for CCAMP and IETF to :
(a) study the ASON docs. to determine what more is needed in the GMPLS suite of protocols,
(b) seek clarifications from the ITU-T, and
(c) provide inputs to the ITU-T.
So, I would definitely support the idea of having the DT (and, in fact, the WG as a whole)
spending some time understanding the ASON routing requirements (instead of merely
adopting them), and, if necessary, providing inputs to the ITU-T SG15 relative to G.7715
and G.7715.1.
-Vishal
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of Zafar Ali
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 7:03 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.
-------