RE: SONET/SDH label agreement?

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

WG chairs, I think Maarten is correct here in the sense
that by now, he (and the WG mailing list) could have 
expected an answer. 

PLEASE act asap.

Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maarten Vissers [mailto:mvissers@lucent.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 9:17 AM
> To: Kireeti Kompella; Vijay Gill
> Cc: ccamp; Wijnen, Bert; Scott Bradner
> Subject: Re: SONET/SDH label agreement?
> 
> 
> 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