RE: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF

["Natale, Robert C (Bob)" <bnatale@lucent.com>]

Hi,

Speaking as a non-expert in some of the technicalities
involved but as one who has reviewed the source docs
and the e-mail threads:

I would cast my vote for 1) -- which, based on ITU-T
TD44, I would interpret as meaning having a single
set of traffic parameters and label values for SDH
*which, for all practical purposes, also encompass
SONET*.

I could also support option 4) -- articulated separately
by Eric -- as a generalization of the above.

Option 2) would seem to introduce a degree of
implementation optionality that ought to be avoided.

Thanks,

BobN

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 4:37 AM
> To: ccamp-wg
> Subject: RE: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF
> 
> 
> CCAMP WG members, 
> 
> before we start down another many 100s of emails re-discussing
> the same topic....
> 
> PLEASE express your support for one of the 3 options that Kireeti
> posed to the WG. Don't elaborate... just help the WG chair(s) to
> figure out the (rough) consensus of the WG. The choices formulated
> by Kireeti:
> 
> > 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?
> > or
> > 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?
> > or
> > 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!
> 
> Thanks
> Bert, speaking as AD who would like to see the WG take 
>       a decision on this topic.
>