RE: Stable state on ASON signaling requirements?

["Ong, Lyndon" <LyOng@Ciena.com>]

Hi Adrian,

You have a good point that most of the requirements work
is stable (I think Jonathan did have an outstanding 
comment on call segments).

However, it seems to me that we are still early in the
discussion of solutions.  By making the RSVP draft a
WG draft, are we settling on its set of solutions?

Thanks,

Lyndon

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 2:00 PM
To: Jonathan Sadler
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Stable state on ASON signaling requirements?


Hi Jonathan,

wrt the ASON signaling solutions draft, you wrote

> Its too early to have solutions as a working group item given that we
> haven't achieved a "stable state" on the requirements. Working on
> solutions at this time will only distract us, creating further negative
> pressure.

You're right that developing solutions too far while requirements are not stable is a bad
thing.

However...

We have had only one comment about the latest version of the requirements draft from the
WG (in Minneapolis and on the list) suggesting that either the draft is stable or the WG
doesn't care. (The amount of noise about the solution draft suggests the WG *does* care).

The one comment was from you in Minneapolis. Dimitri modified the text accordingly and
circulated it. No-one has objected.

So, is there any more requirements work to do, or are we at a stable state?
Recall the draft is attempting to document the current state of the ASON requirements as
they apply to GMPLS signaling and in terms that the IETF can grok.

Thanks,
Adrian