[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15
Adrian, I don't like either paragraph....
The point I was attempting to raise, and I think Enrique made a similar
point, is that we should phrase the liaison to stimulate a discussion
with the experts in Q6 on the value of making measurements on active
optical paths.
Malcolm Betts
Nortel Networks
Phone: +1 613 763 7860 (ESN 393)
email: betts01@nortel.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 3:17 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15
Does anyone else have an opinion on the difference between these two
paragraphs...
> However, if a service provider chooses to measure optical link
> impairments on an out of service basis and this can be achieved within
> ITU-T standards , then this should not be prohibited by the CCAMP
> protocol mechanisms, and the communication of the information
> collected should be accommodated within GMPLS"
> However, if an implementer chooses to measure impairments on their
> device, and this can be achieved within the mechanisms and definitions
> defined by the ITU-T, then this should not be prohibited by the CCAMP
> protocol mechanisms, and the communication of the information
> collected should be accommodated within GMPLS.
There are several differences:
- state impairments are "optical impairments"
- limit impairments to "link impairments"
- restrict discussion to "out of service measurements"
- refer to "ITU-T standards" rather than "mechanisms
and definitions defined by the ITU-T"
Thanks,
Adrian