From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 7:11 PM
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Cc: Mannie, Eric; 'email@example.com'; 'firstname.lastname@example.org'; ccamp-wg;
Subject: RE: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
> Guys... I have seen to much of this. I have asked Kireeti
> EXPLICITLY to try and CALL FOR or DECLARE CONSENSUS on the
> WG mailing list. I do NOT want another 500 emails going back
> and forth on this issue. We need to approach this pragmatically.
> - WG Chair(s) try to get (rough) CONSENSUS CALLED OUT on the
> WG mailing list on what exactly we agreed in SLC. That will
> help to prepare a response to ITU-T as well
First off, I should apologize for letting this go on unchecked.
Second, I should make it known to the WG as a whole that there was
a discussion of this issue at SLC among several folks directly
involved, the ADs and the chairs. I thought we had achieved
consensus, but now it seems not.
Here's what I thought we had agreed:
1) There is a document in the ITU that defines a *single* standard that
encompasses both SONET and SDH -- almost. There are a few signals
that are in SONET but not in SDH; it was believed that the only such
signal was VC-3. Also, there are "legacy" implementations of SONET
that do not match the ITU document.
2) Thus, it was agreed (to my recollection) that both the SONET and
SDH label formats will be retained, with wording that says that
whenever possible, the SDH equivalent should be used. This covers
both the cases of SONET signals that don't have SDH equivalents,
and legacy equipment.
It is *not* the IETF's intention to promote an artificial separation
between SONET and SDH. Nor is it the intent to promote as standard
work that is now "pre-standard".
However, it *is* the IETF's goal to be able to set up paths across
SONET and SDH networks, and to be pragmatic about this. This was
the spirit in which an agreement was forged -- or so I thought. In
retrospect, it would have been wise to go one step further and
decide the actual words.
So, here we are again, arguing over this. Let's follow the AD's
suggestion and look for consensus in the WG.
1) Do you think we should have just a single set of traffic parameters
and label values for SDH, and none for SONET?
2) Do you think we should have one for SONET and one for SDH, with
the proviso that, if an SDH equivalent is available, one SHOULD
use the SDH equivalent?
3) Do you think we should have one for SONET and one for SDH, with
the proviso that, if an SDH equivalent is available, one MUST
use the SDH equivalent?
(in the above, SHOULD and MUST are to be interpreted as in RFC 2119.)
PLEASE respond with just (1), (2) or (3), and avoid long diatribes!
Feedback is welcome from *all* those interested in the CCAMP WG.
Also, what we are looking for is rough consensus, not votes.