RE: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15

["Varma, Eve L \(Eve\)" <evarma@alcatel-lucent.com>]

Adrian,  

I concur with Malcolm's and Enrique's points. 

Best regards,
Eve

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Malcolm Betts
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 3:34 PM
To: Adrian Farrel; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: 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