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

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

Hi Gerry,

In your email, below, you indicate that "What was not well communicated is the the ITU decided (recently) to do the GMPLS/ASON extnesions themselves.  I think many of the postings on this thread indicate that people were not aware of,
and disagree with, this approach".

Quoting from an earlier message from Steve Trowbridge (see below), you can see that proposed extensions were communicated
to ccamp via a May 10, 2002 liaison, and presented at the following Yokohama IETF meeting.  This was subsequent to the Feb. 19, 2001 liaison identifying the gaps that had been identified and requesting support.

 "On February 19, 2002, ITU-T sent IETF ccamp a liaison statement regarding
  the gaps that had been identified between the ITU-T requirements (sent
  earlier) and what seemed to be implemented by the GMPLS protocols. Specifically,
  1. Call & Connection separation, e.g., a call provides the service
     relationship, which may support connection operations as part of a call. 
  2. Additional error codes/values, for example, for connection rejection
     (invalid connection ID). 
  3. Restart mechanisms: Depending on the introduction by the ITU of additional
     control plane resiliency requirements, enhancements of the protocol
     (RSVP-TE, CR-LDP) "graceful restart" mechanisms may be required. 
  4. Protocol enhancements in CR-LDP for support of crankback capability from
     intermediate nodes. 
  This liaison was presented in the Minneapolis IETF meeting during the ccamp
  working group and posted on the IESG web site. The liaison requested
  assistance in closing these gaps and invited input from IETF on our work
  in ITU-T.
- At the April/May 2002 meeting of ITU-T Study Group 15 meeting, contributions
  were considered to close these gaps, resulting in text for draft Recommendations
  G.7713.2 (our rsvp-te document) and G.7713.3 (our cr-ldp document). Again,
  we sent a liaison (dated May 10, 2002) to ask for comments on our draft
  Recommendations (made available on the ftp site), to request alignment, and
  to ask for IANA code point assignments. To quote from that liaison:
"Please consider including the proposed solutions provided in G.7713.2 and G.7713.3
to update the existing GMPLS signaling work in support of ASON requirements.
We hope that you can help expedite the assignment of appropriate additional
error codes/values by IANA.  These are needed for both RSVP-TE and CR-LDP."
  This liaison was presented at the Yokohama IETF ccamp meeting."

Best regards,
Eve

-----Original Message-----
From: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS [mailto:gash@att.com]
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 9:28 AM
To: Lin, Zhi-Wei (Zhi); iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Cc: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; Stephen Trowbridge; David Charlap; Loa
Andersson; Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Subject: RE: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational


Zhi,

I have followed the ASON and CCAMP work quite closely over the last couple of years.  I am quite familiar and mostly in agreement with your summary of events below.  

What was not well communicated is that the ITU decided (recently) to do the GMPLS/ASON extensions themselves.  I think many of the postings on this thread indicate that people were not aware of, and disagree with, this approach.

I can understand the frustration of not getting attention to the needed ASON requirements in IETF/CCAMP.  IETF/CCAMP had been saying (quoting statements made by chairs and ADs) they need to 'close the gaps' to meet ASON requirements as far back as IETF-53/Minneapolis (March).  CCAMP charter extensions to address same were suggested(IETF-54/Yokohama CCAMP meeting minutes say "The charter update is way overdue. Items may be added - protection/restoration, crankback and multi-area operations."), but CCAMP charter extensions are still pending even to this day.  

However, the answer is not for the ITU (or any other standards body) to extend IETF protocols, and visa versa.  This leads to interoperability problems, I believe, wherein we have 'ITU-TLVs', 'IETF-TLVs', 'OIF-TLVs', etc. for GMPLS protocols.  Furthermore, we are now inheriting many 'ITU-TLVs' for RSVP-TE and CRLDP.  This precludes, or at least inhibits, proper technical discussion to arrive at the best technical approach.  Further discussion on 'ITU-TLVs' (e.g., call control, crankback, etc.) is now moot.

Perhaps we can learn from this and improve the process, e.g.:

a) Bert has proposed a (G)MPLS change process (seems like a good idea),
b) better communication and responsiveness, especially from WG chairs on direct queries (e.g., 'where is the CCAMP charter update?' has been asked many times, but there is no response, still pending).

Regards,
Jerry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lin, Zhi-Wei (Zhi) [mailto:zwlin@lucent.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 2:57 AM
> To: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS; iesg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: Stephen Trowbridge; David Charlap; Loa Andersson
> Subject: RE: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational
> 
> Hi Jerry,
> 
> I'm not sure how long you've followed the entire GMPLS and 
> ASON work, but I'm assuming here that you weren't part of the 
> original discussions over the last 1.5 to 2 years on this 
> matter. That's understandable as this wasn't your original 
> area of interest.
> 
> However, if you talk with some folks involved since the 
> beginning, you would realize (and also reading Steve's email 
> on the history, or simply going back to the email archives in 
> both MPLS and CCAMP) that
> (a) ITU-T tried to get the work done in IETF (I believe Steve 
> mentioned Oct. 21, 2001)
> (b) IETF never actually started/initiated work to fill these 
> gaps. So a set of individuals who happens to attend IETF, OIF 
> and ITU decided that they would work towards a solution
> (c) This solution was submitted into IETF, OIF, and ITU -- 
> with clear intention of trying to get feedback from the 
> "true" RSVP experts
> (d) I (and Bala) created I-Ds in IETF (Bala actually started 
> this I think sometime in early 2002? -- Bala you can confirm 
> or correct -- while I submitted my I-D in June 2002)
> (e) These documents were never taken seriously (This is the 
> first email I sent: 
> http://ops.ietf.org/lists/ccamp/ccamp.2002/msg00918.html -- 
> but of course no one responded)
> (f) ITU-T requests which were publicly presented in CCAMP 
> meetings by Wesam and Steve (see Steve's email to see how 
> many requests were made) were never taken seriously
> 
> The ITU-T delayed their process by several months in order 
> for RSVP experts (I guess Bob Braden would call folks who's 
> done this work "non-RSVP experts") to review. Of course no 
> comments were ever provided by the "true" RSVP experts.
> 
> Several individuals tried very hard to try and get a good 
> relationship and collaboration going amongst the three 
> organizations. The break-down is not for lack of trying or 
> exposing the work to the RSVP experts.
> 
> As such, although I agree that the original intent of all the 
> individuals who came into this work expecting to collaborate 
> and do the work in IETF CCAMP WG, the actual situation is 
> very much different, and is a result of certain members of 
> the CCAMP WG community deciding not to bother with paying 
> attention to the work. Again I can understand the perception 
> that you get since you weren't involved from the beginning. 
> But a casual perusal of the email archives (too much work for 
> me, if you're interested you should take a look at the 
> history first) would give you a much better and accurate 
> history of the discussions (see 
> http://ops.ietf.org/lists/ccamp for the CCAMP email archive, 
> and 
> http://cell.onecall.net/cell-relay/archives/mpls/mpls.index.html 
> for the MPLS email archive).
> 
> Thanks
> Zhi