draft-rabbat-ccamp-carrier-survey-00.txt

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Hi,

Thanks for starting the ball rolling on this.

It is tempting to start analysing the results, but probably too early.

One SP responded that they are already using shared-mesh. It would be hugely interesting
to know the experiences of this operator. Would they be prepared to stand up? If not,
would they be prepared to filter their comments anonymously through the chair?

I have some big and little issues with the draft.

Big issues.

A.

I'm inclined to agree with Tom Petch. Surveys are, of course, very delicate things
especially when they apply to future plans of competitive bodies, but it really would be
useful to have some indication of the responses for each SP.

I suggest you look at the old GMPLS implementation survey format. The draft consisted of a
summarization (like what you have published) but also included all of the questionnaire
responses to that we could see how the responses to each question were correlated. It is
not necessary to force the identification of each responder, but you should allow them to
be identified if they choose.

In any case, it would be useful to understand where the individuals responding fit within
their company organisations. Without casting any aspersions, there is a large difference
between someone in the research department and someone in the operations department.

B.

I would like to see (as I'm sure you intend) a more open invitation to participate in the
survey. Probably refine the survey, post it somewhere, notify the mailing list and through
other channels.

C.

Although the abstract/introduction mentions optical networks, the survey does not appear
to draw any differentiation between the various switching capabilities. I think it is
fundamental to an understanding of what carriers are trying to achieve to know what type
of network they are trying to build (PSC, TDM, WDM etc.).

D. Questions 2 and 3 on the survey seem pretty important, but don't appear in section 5.

E.

Section 5.1 claims that the responses relate to GMPLS, but the question is about "an
IP-based control plane such as GMPLS."

G.

Section 5.2 claims that the responses relate to using GMPLS to provide shared-mesh
restoration, but the survey question does not mention GMPLS.

H.

Section 5.3 is a good example of why we need to provide the responses correlated by
responder. For some responders the answers here may have prevented them from making plans
to deploy, for others they plan to deploy despite their concerns. For others, they have no
plans to deploy for other reasons, but have still voiced concerns.

I.

Section 5.4. It is not clear whether the final comment in this section is your
interpretation, apple-pie, or a specific response to the survey.

J.

Section 5.5 claims that the responses pertain to traffic carried on the responder's
network, but the question makes no reference to this and is general in nature.

K.

Why does question 9 lead the witness? In order to establish the true requirements we
should not discuss specific solution models, but try to understand what the operational
concerns are.

Little issues.

a.

It might be nice if the draft file name gave a little more clue about the content of the
survey. You might consider draft-rabbat-ccamp-gmpls-mesh-carrier-survey-00.txt

b. Please try to avoid spurious characters in the text.

c.

Abstract says that a number of GMPLS routing and signaling standards have been completed.
I think the RFCs are only at Proposed Standard at the moment.

d. Don't think you need section 2

e.

Glad that you have a one paragraph definition of "shared mesh restoration" in the survey.
Probably good to copy it into the main draft.

Cheers,
Adrian