FW: ASON and their improper use of RSVP

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

FYI.

The documents (RFC3474/3475/3476 to be) have been held up
in RFC-48hour call for 6 weeks or so. I've been working with
authors and the "flaming IETF people" to work out edits that
seem to be acceptable for everyone.

During the process, we found a claimed "fatal flaw".
I had it reviewed by Jukka Manner (as suggested by Allison)
and he also thinks that there is risk for interoperability
problems. So I have asked to removed the "offending text"
(which is irrelevant for the documentation of IANA assigned
code points). That way we do not have the "fatal flaw" text in
any RFC. 

I am asking the CCAMP and MPLS WG chairs to create a few
Liason statements to ITU to point out the problem. See below.

Thanks,
Bert 

-----Original Message-----
From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) 
Sent: zondag 23 maart 2003 6:33
To: Kireeti Kompella (E-mail); George Swallow (E-mail); Loa Andersson
(E-mail); Ron Bonica (E-mail)
Cc: Alex Zinin (E-mail); bwijnen@lucent.com; Scott Bradner (E-mail);
Allison Mankin (E-mail)
Subject: ASON and their improper use of RSVP


So... as you may have seen, I have composed a set
of RFC-Editor edits for rfc3475-to-be. See my other
email about this.

Now... I would like CCAMP and/or MPLS WG to prepare
two Liason or Communication statements to the ITU-T SG15.

They are:
1. A statement that reports a fatal flaw in how they
   deal with ResvErr and ResvTear. 
   The statement should have a detailed description of 
   why it is flawed. It should also suggest a fix, which
   I think is that the ASON implementations MUST just 
   adhere to the documented ResvTear and ResvErr behaviour.

2. A statement that describes how they could have done their
   call/connection separation much more simpler by re-using
   much more of the existing objects (that is what I think
   I now understand is the claim from some of you).
   I guess we should recommend that they change their
   documents accordingly. Not sure if they will do so,
   but at least we can propose/suggest.

I think it would be good to review those liason-statements-to-be
with the CCAMP and/or MPLS WG participants before we send them.

I also want to have the statement for item 1. above reviewed
by the neutral/independent RSVP expert that I have consolted
during last IETF. I will not reveal his/her name, so as to
try and keep the person as neutral as possible.

Does this sound as a good plan?
Can we try and do this in the next month, so finish by April 30th?

Thanks,
Bert