Sorry for not responding sooner -- I was out with the family at the amusement park the past two days. Something about hurtling down the hill of a rollercoaster helps put things into perspective.
My comments so far were intended only as a constructive and informative contribution to the IETF process. If I have offended, I offer my apology.
When you and Deborah request my opinion whether these documents meets the needs of the OIF, I must interpret it as a request for my opinion if these documents are aligned with the ITU's requirements and architecture for ASON. This stems from OIF motions to follow the ITU's requirements and architecture documents. All comments have been made from this vantage point.
Judgment of alignment with the ITU's requirements is something that can only take place within the ITU after reasoned and informed debate. It is not something that an individual can say on the behalf of the ITU without authorization. In fact, this is something that Q14/15 discussed in its liaison to CCAMP dated Nov 2005, well before the IESG review and publication date of the CCAMP eval document. The text of that liaison (found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file210.doc) reads:
"In general, it is requested that CCAMP notify Q.14/15 when ASON-related drafts are nearing completion. While some members of Q.14/15 have participated in CCAMP activities such as joint design teams, their participation does not constitute agreement of Q.14/15 itself with the output. We strongly suggest that CCAMP liaises such documents to ITU for review prior to publishing as an RFC (for example, just preceding or following WG Last Call), in order to ensure continued mutual understanding of the requirements."
Given this statement from the ITU, I do not feel it is my place to state whether or not the document is in alignment. All I can say is there is potential evidence may not be and the documents should be liaised for comment/agreement before it can be said they are in alignment.
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:59 AM
To: Sadler, Jonathan B.
Subject: Alignment of OIF routing requirements with CCAMP ASON routing requirements [Was : Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI]
Deborah asked your opinion on whether CCAMP's ASON requirements document and
evaluation document meet the needs of OIF. You say you are unable to make
this personal evaluation. That is surprising. One would expect that you
would have some sort of clue as:
- a named contributer and member of the design team for RFC4258
- an author of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval
- an active participant in CCAMP where these two documents were last called
- a named contributer to "Draft OIF Specification for E-NNI Routing using
- the editor of G.7715.
Lyndon has stated that he believes there is good alignment and that the
objective is alignment.
Will you state your opinion?
============================================================ The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs ============================================================