Re: Re-re-Updated Draft Liaiosn to Q6/15

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Hi Adrian,

On Tue Mar/10/09 11:16 , Adrian Farrel wrote:

> 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.

I prefer to leave in "optical link impairments", to stimulate discussion by
Q6; I don't like "definitions defined"; and I don't see why CCAMP *protocol
mechanisms* should be constrained, let alone prohibited.  The key is that
CCAMP doesn't define what or how to measure (especially optical stuff), just
how to carry.

So, my preference is for para 1.

> There are several differences:
> 
> - state impairments are "optical impairments"
> - limit impairments to "link impairments"

While I'd like to see this broader, what we deal with primarily in GMPLS is
link parameters.  So I'm okay with this (as a start).

> - restrict discussion to "out of service measurements"

Not sure why.  If changes are allowed to para 1, then I'd suggest remove "on
an out of service basis".

> - refer to "ITU-T standards" rather than "mechanisms
>   and definitions defined by the ITU-T"

Referring to ITU-T standards emphasizes two things: (a) the ITU-T must be
the one to define (should they so choose) optical impairments; (b) they
should consider doing so, to accommodate service providers who want this.

> Thanks,
> Adrian 

Kireeti.