|
Adrian, all,
I think we should not state where and how to get these
link impairments, we may only say our GMPLS protocols can support to carry these
link impairments which has been defined (or may be defined in the near
future) in ITU-T standards.
To stimulate the discuss in Q6, we can ask for their
suggestions on the list of link impairments, and would like to know how ITU-T
gets it.
Regards,
Dan
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:16 AM
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
|