Re: IETF 60 CCAMP WG Meeting Follow-up on ASON Signaling and Routing Requirements

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

Hi Dimitri and everyone,

In the absence of any follow-up from Jonathan, who I understand is very busy with his day
job, I am going to represent his opinion from the draft email he sent me. This will give
the authors a chance to respond, make the updates and then we can draw a line under this.

It is clearly not acceptable that these drafts are delayed still further.

Watch out for a subsequent email.

Thanks,
Adrian
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be>
Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; <dpapadimitriou@psg.com>; "Jonathan Sadler"
<jonathan.sadler@tellabs.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: IETF 60 CCAMP WG Meeting Follow-up on ASON Signaling and Routing Requirements


> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>