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

["Meehan, John" <John.Meehan@optisphere.com>]

#4.  Would be #1 if it didn't make it sound like SONET doesn't exist anymore
as Eric Mannie said.  But I must say I agree with Bob's statements below,
the word "should" does bother me.

-----Original Message-----
From: Natale, Robert C (Bob) [mailto:bnatale@lucent.com]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 3:48 PM
To: ccamp-wg
Subject: RE: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF


Hi,

Apologies in advance for this post going against the
grain of the AD's guidance for this thread.  I am not
(I hope!) posting a "diatribe" here :-) -- I am just
curious about something and maybe the answer to it
will affect my own and possibly others' assessment
of the options before us....

As a non-expert (re the diffs between SONET and SDH as
they might necessarily affect labeling requirements or
not), I opted for #1 (or #4, which I consider to be its
moral equivalent) on the basis of my interpretation of
s/w engineering principles and my (negative) experience
with allowing optionality in widely deployed standards.

Since the respondents seems largely divided between
#1 and #2 (with the few mentioning #4 as an acceptable
alternative about equally divided between #1 and #2
as another acceptable choice for them), my attention
is naturally drawn to the absence of any "votes" for
#3 (apologies if I've missed anyone's vote for #3)...?

The only diff that I can discern between #2 and #3 is
the SHOULD in #2 vs the MUST in #3.  It is that SHOULD
in #2 that caused me to discount it up front.  I am
curious to know how the people expressing a preference
for #2 feel about #3 -- that is, do they see it important
that we specify #2 rather than #3, or rather than #1?

I'm really against that SHOULD in #2.  But -- although
I do prefer #1 (or, second, #4) for the reasons mentioned
above -- I might not feel as determinedly antagonistic
to #3, if that were to end up being the WG's consensus.

Thanks,

BobN

>At 07:39 AM 2/26/2002, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) wrote:
>If people want to express their support for this 4th option
>then that is fine with me. WG chair(s) do you agree too
>(don't want to step on your toes or sit in your chair).
>
>Bert
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mannie, Eric 
> [<mailto:Eric.Mannie@ebone.com>mailto:Eric.Mannie@ebone.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 11:32 AM
> > To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; ccamp-wg
> > Subject: RE: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF
> >
> >
> > Hello Bert and all,
> >
> > One question is missing:
> >
> > 4) Do you think we should have just a single set of traffic
> > parameters and label format (values) for both SDH and SONET.
> >
> > In 1) "none for SONET" assumes that SONET doesn't exist
> > anymore. Note also that the traffic parameters are already
> > identical, the only difference is about the label. As editor
> > of these drafts I would like at least to see the right
> > questions asked on the mailing list.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) 
> [<mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com>mailto:bwijnen@lucent.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 10:37 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.