RE: ASON Opacity and liaisons

["Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)" <hklam@lucent.com>]

Hi Adrian,

Thank you for the detail information on the history.

Regarding my email, please don't take that as a criticism. 
In particular about the requirements drafts, my intent is just a reminder to send on these more finalized drafts to ITU-T SG15 formally. Regarding the Q14/15 Februrary liaison statement, in deed it was for action about the ASON signalling solutions discussion (not signaling requirements). Nonetheless, liaison responses would have seemed to have been a good springboard for stimulating further joint work. Perhaps we can follow up on this together?

Regards,
Kam

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 8:16 PM
> To: Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; zinin@psg.com; Bill Fenner; 'Kireeti Kompella'
> Subject: Re: ASON Opacity and liaisons
> 
> 
> Hello Kam,
> 
> Thanks for the email. Let me go over the history before 
> coming to your specific points.
> 
> The review and liaison in Chicago were in direct response to 
> CCAMP passing the latest
> copies of the drafts to SG15 and soliciting input. They were 
> notified to the CCAMP mailing
> list on 1st March, (and so copied to the ASON signaling and 
> routing requirements design
> teams), published on the CCAMP alternative web pages, and 
> published on the IETF's liaison
> pages.
> 
> The CCAMP design teams responsible for the ASON signaling and 
> routing requirements drafts
> were certainly grateful for the review comments received in a 
> formal liaison from SG15.
> You may be sure that the points raised were fully considered, 
> especially since I was in
> the room in Chicago when drafts were reviewed and the liaison 
> statement was drafted.
> 
> The liaisons were subsequently presented to CCAMP in Seoul by 
> Lyndon Ong and the efforts
> of the ITU-T were recognized from the chair.
> 
> On return from Seoul, the editor of the ASON Signaling 
> Requirements draft was able to
> agree upon the points for inclusion in the draft after 
> discussion with his design team.
> The changes made were largely in line with those suggested by 
> the liaison.
> 
> After Seoul, the editor of the ASON Routing Requirements 
> draft was able to reach agreement
> on all but three points. She quickly took these remaining 
> issues to the CCAMP mailing list
> where they were (hotly) debated. After a while it was 
> possible to separate the requirement
> issues from the discussion of solutions and progress was made 
> thanks to the participation
> of no fewer than seven people who regularly attend and 
> participate in SG15. The debate
> quietened down after March 19th with sufficient consensus for 
> the design team to move
> forward.
> 
> A working group last call was issued for the ASON Routing 
> Requirements draft on April 15th
> and included the text...
> > The ASON Routing Reqts DT has updated the following draft based on
> > ITU Q14/15's Liaison and CCAMP mail list comments.
> This means that the SG15 comments were included as modified 
> by the discussions on the
> CCAMP mailing list, and that the draft had been agreed upon 
> by the whole design team.
> 
> A working group last call was issued for the ASON Signaling 
> Requirements draft on April
> 26th and included the text...
> > The authors of this draft have updated it to reflect the 
> comments on the
> > mailing list and the helpful feedback from ITU-T SG15 Question 14.
> This means that the SG15 comments were included. In fact, the 
> draft had been updated and
> agreed upon by the whole design team. The fact of the last 
> call was circulated to the
> IETF's OSPF, IS-IS and Routing working groups in order to 
> ensure a wide coverage of
> potential reviewers.
> 
> It is unthinkable that either draft would have been published 
> or put up for last call if
> any member of the design team had raised an objection.
> 
> A working group last call is public and is not confined to 
> any particular body. It gives
> an opportunity for everyone who is subscribed to the mailing 
> list to comment. This covers
> a considerable number of participants in SG15 and, of course, 
> includes the whole of the
> design team.
> 
> The ASON Routing Requirements draft completed last call with 
> a few minor comments. It
> turned out that most of these comments were questioning the 
> validity of text in G.7715.1,
> and CCAMP's position was (of course) that the draft must 
> reflect the statements in that
> recommendation and not try to invent different requirements. 
> The other comments were
> editorial nits. The draft was duly updated with agreement 
> from the design team, and
> re-published on May 6th with notification on the CCAMP mailing list.
> 
> The ASON Signaling Requirements draft completed last call 
> with no comments.
> 
> Both drafts were passed to the AD for review.
> 
> On May 10th a further liaison was received from SG15 Q.14/15 
> thanking CCAMP and the
> members of the ASON Routing Requirements Design Team for 
> their efforts to understand and
> capture ASON Routing Requirements for the future work in 
> IETF. This liaison was published
> and notified on the CCAMP mailing list.
> 
> In the run-up to the San Diego IETF, both drafts were 
> reviewed by the AD and were updated
> accordingly. The changes were minor and for clarification 
> only. Again, the design team
> agreed the changes. The drafts were not published before San 
> Diego, but were made publicly
> available.
> 
> In San Diego, both drafts were presented and the plan to 
> forward them to the IESG was
> announced. However, Jonathan Sadler raised an important 
> concern that the drafts did not
> sufficiently capture the notion of subnetwork opacity. This 
> was picked up by a number of
> people attending the meeting and it was immediately agreed 
> that a gathering of the design
> team, working group chairs and other interested parties 
> should be held at once. Although
> the process had already been completed with ample chance for 
> the authors, the design team
> and external reviewers to discover and raise this point, the 
> gathering agreed that
> Jonathan should be deputed to review the drafts in the light 
> of his concerns and raise any
> specific issues with me.
> 
> Over the next couple of months, Jonathan raised a few points 
> with me and I passed them on
> to the design team and to the CCAMP mailing list. A quick 
> analysis revealed that only a
> very minor change was required. This was agreed upon by the 
> design teams and the drafts
> were published.
> 
> The drafts are now on their way to the IESG for review.
> 
> It is worth pointing out that the two design teams concerned 
> are joint design teams of the
> IETF's CCAMP working group and the ITU-T's SG15. The reason 
> for having a joint design team
> is so that the work progresses faster and in tandem. One 
> might reasonably assume that the
> SG15 members of the team were regularly reporting back to the 
> ITU-T on the progress of the
> drafts, as the CCAMP members were required by the working 
> group to do. So, while the
> liaison process was useful for collecting together the formal 
> review comments, it was
> somewhat secondary to the joint development of the drafts by 
> members of both groups.
> 
> Now to your specific email.
> 
> > We very much appreciate to continue the process of exchange 
> and liaison with CCAMP.
> 
> Thank you. On the whole I think it has been valuable and has 
> ensured that the two groups
> are in synch with regard to the requirements on GMPLS 
> networks for the support of ASON.
> Certainly, given the unanimity of support in the design teams 
> for the two drafts, we have
> been successful.
> 
> Of course, i am considerably concerned by the extremely long 
> time that it has taken to
> produce this relatively simple draft. Truly, design by 
> committee is a long-winded process.
> But, in this case, it has been worth it to ensure the 
> complete agreement that we have
> achieved.
> 
> > The second paragraph of your email however reminds me that these
> > drafts have not been formally liaised to SG15 yet.
> 
> This is so, and I am surprised that you expect any different. 
> Certainly the ITU-T is not
> in the habit of liaising its draft recomendations to the IETF 
> and gaiting their progress
> pending a response.
> 
> But recall that the previous version of the draft was liaised 
> ot SG15, and SG15 reviewed
> it thoroughly and rseponded fully.
> Since the review comments were significantly incorporated, a 
> further liaison of the drafts
> was clearly unnecessary. In any case, the design teams had 
> had ample oportunity to review
> the drafts, and many members of the SG15 community had also 
> been afforded that oportunity
> through the normal open and public IETF process.
> 
> >It also reminds me that the Q14/15 Liaison Statement from the
> > Februrary 2004 Chicago meeting to CCAMP
> >
> ftp://sg15opticalt:otxchange@ftp.itu.int/tsg15opticaltransport
> /COMMUNICATIONS/ccamp/IETF_ccamp_G.7713.2_comments.html
> > has never been responded by CCAMP yet.
> 
> That is true.
> 
> I'm afraid that I was not aware that a response was either 
> required or desired (although I
> admit that it would have been polite if Kireeti and I had 
> acknowledged the receipt). This
> may be due to the fact that I do not understand ITU-T 
> phrasing, because I see that the
> liaison is marked as "For: Action" with "Deadline: 12th April 
> 2004". This was interpretted
> as meaning that SG15 would like CCAMP and the design teams to 
> act on the liaison before
> 12th April - which they did.
> 
> Had there been a direct request for a response we would have 
> endeavored to reply in the
> specified timescale. (Although we are all human, and have day 
> jobs, so sometimes these
> things do get dropped.)
> 
> If you feel that it would be helpful for CCAMP to generate a 
> liaison about these drafts,
> please let me know and we will be glad to supply one.
> 
> The paragraph from my email that you cite reads as follows.
> 
> > > As you will recall, these drafts (which have been through WG
> > > last call and have had a full process of exchange and liaison
> > > with the ITU-T's Study Group 15) had been reviewed by the
> > > AD and a few comments were raised. These comments were
> > > addressed immediately before the San Diego IETF, but the
> > > editors just missed the publication deadline.
> 
> I think you will agree that the liaison process for these 
> drafts has been very full.
> Probably more extensive than any for a long time. And the 
> fact that the drafts were
> authored by design teams deliberately picked to include 
> members of both groups is evidence
> of the lengths to which this process was taken.
> 
> I hope this answers all of your questions, but please do let 
> me know if there is more
> information that would help you.
> 
> Regards,
> Adrian
> 
>