Hi Dimitri,
Thanks for the prod.
Jonathan Sadler has just sent me a draft of his thoughts for all three of the ASON drafts
(signaling requirements, signaling solution, and routing requirements), and I have given
him my feedback.
From this I think that we will be able to draw a couple of simple actions.
Routing requirements:
Jonathan has three simple statements about subnetwork opacity that he thinks should be
added to the draft. These don't look contentious (to me) and I would imagine that we can
add them as soon as he sends mail to the list. At that point we can ask the ADs to take
the draft to the IESG.
Signaling solution:
Jonathan has pointed out that the draft currently does not discuss how signaling across
opaque subnetworks is handled. he is correct on this, and I'm sure that the authors can
manage to add a section to describe this or to refer the reader to the other drafts on MRN
and multi-domain signaling.
Since this draft is still a work in progress, this point is not so urgent.
Signaling requirements:
Jonathan feels that subnetwork opacity is also not so clearly described as a requirement
in this document. He is working to come up with a couple of clear, short statements like
those for the routing requirements documents that would cover this. At that point we will
be able to move the draft forward to the IESG as well.
Cheers,
Adrian
----- Original Message -----
From: "dimitri papadimitriou" <dpapadimitriou@psg.com>
To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 9:52 PM
Subject: IETF 60 CCAMP WG Meeting Follow-up on ASON Signaling and Routing Requirements
In San Diego, several people expressed concerns that some issues of
ASON sub-network opacity were not adequately covered in the CCAMP ASON
signaling and routing requirements drafts that had already completed
working group last call.
So, editor(s) of the above mentioned documents are looking (in case) for
moving forward with these pending i-d's
Thanks,
- dimitri.
.