RE: ASON Routing Requirements to WG doc

["zafar ali" <zali@cisco.com>]

Hi Deborah, DT, et al, 

Thanks for addressing these concerns. Much appreciated. I am also glade
that the doc is now accepted by the WG :-) 

Thanks
 
Regards... Zafar

>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 
>[mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brungard, 
>Deborah A, ALABS
>Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:27 AM
>To: v.sharma@ieee.org; Zafar Ali; Kireeti Kompella
>Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
>Subject: 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.
>-------
>
>