Re: SONET/SDH label agreement?

[Maarten Vissers <mvissers@lucent.com>]

Kireeti, Vijay,

On Feb. 8 I send you the email below. So far I haven't received an answer and I
assume the email has not been received by you or has got at the bottom of the
stack. As such a resent. Hope you will be able to respond today.

Thanks,

Maarten

Maarten Vissers wrote:
> 
> Vijay, Kireeti,
> 
> Almost two months ago we met in a small team to address the issues hindering the
> completion of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh and
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-extensions.
> When this meeting ended, I was convinced we had reached agreement on the way to
> continue:
> 
> - move "Appendix 1 - Signal Type Values Extension For Group Signals" from the
> sonet-sdh document to the sonet-sdh-extensions document;
> 
> - modify the sonet-sdh document such that the SDH traffic parameters and label
> will be used for SONET signals for which there exists an identical SDH signal.
> SONET signals for which there is no SDH equivalent will keep using the SONET
> specific traffic parameters and label.
> 
> Afterwards I noticed that the latter agreement is interpreted in different ways:
> 
> A) keep both SONET and SDH specific traffic parameter and label specifications
> in the sonet-sdh document, and let the equipment manufacturer and/or operator
> choose if the traffic parameters and label for a SONET signal (with identical
> SDH signal) will use the SONET specification or the SDH specification. This
> results in a "double coding" scheme for SONET signals.
> 
> B) modify the sonet-sdh document such that there is one set of traffic
> parameters and label for each SONET signal. For those SONET signals with
> identical SDH signal (i.e. all SONET signals except VT-3) only the SDH traffic
> parameters and label will be specified. For those SONET signals that do not have
> an SDH equivalent (i.e. VT-3) the SONET traffic parameters and label will be
> specified. This results in a "single coding" scheme for SONET signals.
> 
> This dual interpretation is again hindering the completion of the sonet-sdh
> document.
> 
> Note that interpretation B) sufficiently meets the request from ITU-T SG15 as
> laid down in the its communications statement and as such was an acceptable
> compromise for me.
> ftp://sg15opticalt:otxchange@ftp.itu.int/tsg15opticaltransport/COMMUNICATIONS/ccamp/IETF_ccamp_sdhgroup.html
> (note -  I can't find this document on the IETF web site anymore)
> Interpretation A) will at the best require two coding schemes to be supported in
> each equipment, and at the worst will cause interworking problems. It doesn't
> meet the request from ITU-T SG15. If I would have been aware of this
> interpretation, I would not have agreed with it.
> 
> May I ask you for your understanding/interpretation on this matter.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Maarten
begin:vcard 
n:Vissers;Maarten
tel;cell:+31 62 061 3945
tel;fax:+31 35 687 5976
tel;home:+31 35 526 5463
tel;work:+31 35 687 4270
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Optical Network Group;Lucent Technologies Nederland
version:2.1
email;internet:mvissers@lucent.com
title:Consulting Member of Technical Staff
adr;quoted-printable:;;Botterstraat 45=0D=0A=0D=0A;1271 XL Huizen;;;The Netherlands
fn:Maarten Vissers
end:vcard