Missing pieces in draft-team-tewg-restore-hierarchy-00.txt

[Sudheer Dharanikota <sudheer@nayna.com>]

Hi all:

I have following comments on the design team draft presented at
IETF. I already discussed some of these comments with
Wai.

1. You need to take this drafts to next level in making protocol
related suggestions and requirements, and clarify deployment
assumptions.

2. Please make a clear distinction between hierarchy and partitioning.
What seemed to be a horizontal hierarchy is in fact a network partition
in the carrier networks. (These were Yong's comments)

3. Although you say only horizontal hierarchy is considered, we propose
atleaset two layer (Client and Server layer) capabilities should be
considered.
Example, if the server layer is optical or SONET/SDH then it itself can
possess some restoration capabilities, which need to be considered by
the client layer technologies. This helps in choosing the protection and

restoration mechanisms wisely.

4. Need to provide a better and clear definition of SRG and its
interaction
to the restoration strategy. In this context please refer to our work on
SRGs,
draft-many-ccamp-srg-00.txt. Feel free to take the definitions and other

requirements related material (with due acknowledgement :-) ) from this
draft.
Especially, as presented at the TEWG, we would like to include
following:

    - the concept of "Risk Domain" associated with SRG (please refer to
the
    draft on the definition and its usage).
    - add capabilities to SRG. This helps in diverse path computation.
    - add summarization requirements to reduce the amount of TE
information
    dissemination.

5. Recovery time requirements, capacity planning assumptions and service
request
interface definitions should be clarified.

Thank you,

sudheer