RE: CORRECTION: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational

["Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO" <gash@att.com>]

Adrian> I am saying that it sounds to me from the discussion that 
Adrian> the ITU has not yet reached consent. It seemed to me that 
Adrian> if the draft is intended to document the ITU preferences as 
Adrian> informational, it would be as well to wait until the ITU has
Adrian> fully signed off. I don't see any rush for this.

Loa> ok - I can see the difference - and it seems that you are correct. If
Loa> the ITU discussion still has some way to go before the discussion
Loa> settles and the preferences better known - wouldn't it be 
Loa> appropriate to wait until this happens?

ASON Signaling Recommendations G.7713.2 (GMPLS RSVP-TE) and G.7713.3 (GMPLS CR-LDP) are proposed for consent at the upcoming SG15 meeting, 20-31 January (Geneva).  A Liaison was sent to the IETF containing Recommendation text, but I can't find it on http://www.ietf.org/IESG/LIAISON/.

Both documents propose detailed protocol specifications including new TLVs (e.g., crankback TLV in G.7713.3).  The intent of these Recommendations is unclear.  

If these are statements of 'ITU preferences/requirements' which are made known to the IETF through the Informational RFCs, such as Osama's and Zhi's, then fine.  IETF can then take up the 'preferences/requirements' and consider them for upgrading RSVP-TE and CR-LDP protocols (although CR-LDP is capped).  

However, if they are intended as alternative protocol specs competing with the IETF specs, then that's a problem.  Which spec does a vendor implement and an operator use, given interoperability needs, etc.?  It would be analogous to the IETF specifying their version of G.709.

A clarification of the intent of these Recs. would be helpful.

Jerry Ash