[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Last call completed on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-reqs-05.txt
Working group last call completed on draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-reqs-05.txt
and draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-03.txt with a few comments to consider.
The question was raised about the naming of "virtual TE links." It was
suggested that "potential" be considered as a more appropriate word, partly
because of the existing overload of "virtual" in various contexts, and
partly to tie in with the ASON use of terminology. Could the authors please
think about this and propose a resolution.
We also received some comments from the ITU-T in their liaison
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/368/. They raise some issues for our
consideration and the authors need to address these points so that they can
update the I-D if necessary, and so we can respond to the ITU-T as
- They suggest that we should include a definition of Adaptation.
- They suggest advertising the adaptation capability/ies of a link in place
of the switching capabilities. I am confused by this because I would have
thought that both pieces of information are needed. It may be that the ITU-T
are assuming that the technology layer is known a priori. It is certainly
the case that multiple switching or adaptation capabilities should be able
to be advertised on a single link, and I think this is in the I-Ds, but
maybe it needs clarification.
- Abstract representations of layers and adaptations may be advantageous.
Although this might be a solution-specific issue, if there are requirements
they should be drawn out.
The ITU-T suggests that the virtual node model might be applied as a
solution architecture alongside the virtual links. Maybe the requirements
draft could include some comments on this.