Re: ASON RSVP-TE draft to WG doc

[Stephen J Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>]

Hi Kireeti,
No.

Some rationale (very high level):
It seems premature, and it is not a good idea to have parallel track
documents in ITU-T and IETF to do the same thing.

In terms of whether it is in Scope, ASON is inherently beyond IETF
scope. It applies to networks where the transport (data) plane is
not necessarily IP. It applies to networks where addresses are not
necessarily IP addresses. It applies to networks where demarcation
and separation are needed in a manner that is not part of how all-IP
networks are built. The requirements inherently come from, or belong
to, ITU-T.

On the other hand, nobody wants to invent a new protocol from scratch
when there are existing protocols that meet many of the requirements.
So we end up with an inherently collaborative activity between ITU-T
and the protocol experts in ccamp to try to design the best way to
apply or extend the protocol to meet the additional ITU-T requirements.
Not only has there been a lot of (not always successful) communication
between the two organizations to do this, but a lot of the same
individuals have been involved in the work in both places (which has
been somewhat more successful).

What we have existing is ASON requirements and architecture in G.807 and
G.8080.
We have in IETF RFC 3471 and 3473 to cover GMPLS signaling (generic and
RSVP-TE specific).
We have in ITU-T G.7713 and G.7713.2 to cover ASON signaling (protocol-
neutral (generic) and RSVP-TE specific, based on RFC 3473).
We have the codepoints for the ASON extensions from G.7713.2 assigned
in RFC 3474.

The impression I have from those who promote this new activity are that
they believe that there are some things WRONG or MISSING from what we
have so far. While there have been a number of rumors of problems,
nobody seems to think that they need to write down a crisp characterization
of those problems. No new activity should be started until this is done.
(Note that Kam Lam, Rapporteur of Q.14/15 sent an email to the WG chairs
on Nov. 19, and to the full list on Nov. 22 requesting specifics - so
far no response. See http://ops.ietf.org/lists/ccamp/ccamp.2003/msg01089.html )

If this is really the motivation, then the right first step is to put
down what is wrong or missing in black and white into a liaison statement
to ITU-T so that we can work collaboratively to come up with the best solution.
It is not the right approach to just start a parallel track activity which
could result in divergent solutions to ITU-T problems.
Regards,
Steve

On 11/23/2003 4:35 PM, Kireeti Kompella wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Please indicate whether you think that "Generalized MPLS (GMPLS)
> RSVP-TE Signalling in support of Automatically Switched Optical
> Network (ASON)" (draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason-01.txt) is
> ready to be a CCAMP WG document.  This call ends Dec 7, 2003 at
> midnight PST.
> 
> A simple 'yes' or 'no' will be sufficient.
> 
> Kireeti.
> -------
>