|
Hi Deborah,
Just to be clear, as editor of the OIF document and
co-author of the eval draft, I still believe
both to be very much in alignment. And, of
course, the OIF document points directly to
G.7715.1 as well. There seems to be a perception
being encouraged that there is some
sort of misalignment, but this is not true at
all.
As to the relative relationships of the groups:
the eval draft and the
solutions draft are both IETF documents. They are
not OIF or ITU documents, and
decisions made in the drafts are IETF decisions.
Related drafts such as the
call signaling draft are not even going to be passed
through ITU or OIF for either group
to review. I can and do disagree with
that decision, but my views are treated as those
of a single IETF participant with no greater
weight than any others' (maybe less :o(
So please, let's confine ourselves to commenting on
areas describing GMPLS (esp. the table
in 4.1) and identification of technical concerns
(such as the inter/intra-carrier scope)
and not worry about OIF's "intentions" or
"alignment", since
a) this is not an IETF document
b) the document specifically points to IETF/ITU
for the protocol standards.
Cheers,
Lyndon From: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS [mailto:dbrungard@att.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 7:58 AM To: Sadler, Jonathan B.; Ong, Lyndon; ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Adrian Farrel Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Hi Jonathan,
I think you meant OIF below, as ITU and IETF work on ASON
has been tightly coordinated e.g. a quick back search:
This mis-match is always the concern when work is
duplicated in other groups. For OIF to be progressing a document
identifying issues with GMPLS for supporting ASON when already CCAMP has
finished their document is not only a misuse of people's time (both in OIF and
IETF), it also causes confusion in the industry (we now have ITU-speak,
CCAMP-speak, and OIF-speak).
As the hope of the CCAMP's ASON Design Teams was to have a
representation of ITU, OIF, and CCAMP (especially considering Lyndon is OIF's
Liaison to CCAMP (and editor of the OIF document) and you as chair), if
both of you have difficulty judging the alignment of this document vs. ASON
requirements and CCAMP's work, then the document is not helping either OIF's
intention to develop standards in alignment with ITU and IETF or
CCAMP's ability to develop an ASON solution.
We should re-spin the Liaison to inform OIF that this work has been completed
in CCAMP and to request that OIF's evaluation sections be
removed and replaced with references to the Evaluation document (vs. trying to
do multiple-speak which has us all
confused) and expand on the comments (Dimitri's mail which Lyndon has
agreed is very useful). I'll work on it today, and send
later. "Significant" Thanks on the
confusion;-)
Deborah From: Sadler, Jonathan B. [mailto:Jonathan.Sadler@tellabs.com] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 5:38 PM To: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS; Ong, Lyndon; ccamp@ops.ietf.org Cc: Adrian Farrel Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Hi
Deborah, While I do not speak
for the OIF, I can say that the members of the OIF are on record (by motion) to
follow the Requirements and Architecture specified in G.8080, G.7715 and
G.7715.1. Since the final IETF requirements and IETF evaluations documents
were never liaised to the ITU for comment/agreement before they were sent for
publication, I cannot say that they are aligned with the requirements of the
OIF. Regards, From: Brungard,
Deborah A, ALABS [mailto:dbrungard@att.com] Hi
Jonathan, I just sent mail to
Lyndon to ask if he felt CCAMP's work was aligned. From your mail below, you do
believe that CCAMP's ASON requirements document and evaluation document meet the
needs of OIF? As the OIF Liaison stated it specified requirements, we
do want to ensure that the work is aligned. Thanks, Deborah From: Sadler,
Jonathan B. [mailto:Jonathan.Sadler@tellabs.com] Hi Deborah, Lyndon, et
al, Some additional
comments: - The
hierarchical model discussed in the draft IA liaised may be supported without
any modifications to OSPF. As discussed in earlier emails, it can be
implemented solely through the import/export of information described in
Appendix I of G.7715. - The draft IA
also recognizes namespace issues exist between Router ID and the IP Address that
messages are sent to (ITU calls this the RC PC SCN address). This issue is
also discussed in
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing. Given
that: -
CCAMP has a milestone
to publish an ASON routing solution by Nov 2006, -
CCAMP didn’t have at
the time this was liaised (doesn’t have today?) a working group document,
and -
the draft IA has been
successfully implemented by more than a dozen vendors and interop-tested many
times, I would expect that we
should be looking at this as experience/text that could be leveraged...
“Running code…” and all that… Regards, From: Ong,
Lyndon [mailto:Lyong@Ciena.com] Hi
Deborah, Here's what I would
say is in and not in the OIF document: -- G.7715, G.7715.1 and
the IETF eval and solutions draft all identify a need to support
hierarchical routing areas for ASON,
I am perplexed as to why this seems to be viewed as a new
feature. -- the document does
not specify the domain of usage and leaves this to the carrier. This is no
different from G.7715.1 and IETF
drafts that do not explicitly state whether they are used for intra- or
inter-domain interfaces. -- GMPLS OSPF does not
support a 1:N or N:1 relationship between routing controller and
transport node, hence extensions
are felt to be required - and are proposed in the eval solutions draft. The
conclusions are no
different. -- the document does
not in fact define any standard extensions to the protocols, and points to
future work in IETF and ITU to
provide these. Therefore I cannot understand where you say "new extensions
to OSPF are specified" and
"none...align with the CCAMP's GMPLS-ASON work".
I think we're
experiencing a significant
miscommunication... Cheers, Lyndon From:
owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brungard, Deborah A,
ALABS Hi Jonathan, (and
Lyndon), Thanks to both of you
for responding. "Significant" was
referencing: -
supports a (new) hierarchical OSPF model - supports inter-domain
(inter-carrier) OSPF (not supported by today's
OSPF) - identifies namespace
issues with GMPLS OSPF which do not exist, and proposes extensions to
"fix" - new extensions to
OSPF are specified - none of the proposed
extensions align with CCAMP's GMPLS-ASON work Did you have another
adjective to suggest? We were thinking "significant" was rather soft
considering the above. Though if it's just ITU-speak differences, why does the
OIF liaison state it reflects several years of work including testing? Any
insight (alignment mapping to CCAMP's work) which you or Lyndon can provide
would be helpful. The divergence is baffling to
us. Deborah From: Sadler,
Jonathan B. [mailto:Jonathan.Sadler@tellabs.com] Hi Deborah and
Adrian, I haven’t seen much
discussion of the OIF E-NNI Routing document on the CCAMP list. Can you
tell me what parts of the document are “significant modifications to the
operation of OSPF”? Thanks, From:
owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brungard, Deborah A,
ALABS Hi, We had a communication
from OIF on their OSPF ENNI specification. You can see the original files on
http://www.olddog.co.uk/ccamp.htm. Having assembled
comments from several people and our discussions in Please comment on the
list in the next week. Thanks, Adrian and
Deborah = = = = = = = = = = Dear Jim, We thank you for sending us the OIF ENNI document in
response to our request. While we appreciate the document being provided for
information, it is concerning that this document has not been previously shared
with CCAMP or the OSPF WG considering the document contains significant
modifications to the operation of OSPF and reflects OIF work over the last
several years. CCAMP has been working on GMPLS ASON for several years and our
Design Teams include OIF participants. Even though a reply was not requested, we
are replying, as we strongly recommend that the document not be published for
public information in its current form. Of most concern to CCAMP is that it is not aligned with
RFC 4258 (Requirements for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Routing for the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)) or the
to-be-published: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-03.txt.
Considering notable OIF participants are authors of both these IETF documents
(and the same participants are contributors and the Editor for the OIF
document), the non-alignment is perplexing. Considering the IETF document is
ready for publication, we suggest in the interests of time, that you align your
document with the IETF document. If any questions on the interpretation of the
IETF’s work, we recommend that you either utilize the CCAMP mail exploder or
send a communication. Specific comments include: 1. What is the
intent of this document? Will it be published as an Implementation Agreement
(IA)? 2.
The list of changes from the previous version (listed under
the Table of Contents) includes “removed
“intra-carrier” limitation” and the inclusion of Figure 1 showing the
OSPF ENNI for use between vendor domains and between carrier domains. GMPLS
OSPF-TE already supports inter-vendor operations. 3. Section
4.1/Table 1 and the statement under the table identifying issues with GMPLS
identifier namespaces are not correct. GMPLS identifier namespaces do meet ASON
requirements for namespace separation of the transport plane and control plane
(Section 5.2 and 5.3/Evaluation). Perhaps you are confusing OSPF and GMPLS OSPF?
As you also identified in your liaison that the key area needing review was the
support of independence of functional component to physical location, this
appears to be a key area of misunderstanding on GMPLS. We recommend reviewing
RFC3945 (GMPLS Architecture) to understand that the key architecture difference
between GMPLS and MPLS is the decoupling of the transport plane and control
plane. Additionally, RFC4394, RFC4397, and RFC4258, provide a mapping to ITU
terminology which may be helpful reading. We request an additional round of communication of this
document to the IETF before approval to allow us to work with you to produce
convergence between OIF and IETF work which, we believe, will be in the best
interests of the industry. Best regards, CCAMP co-chairs ============================================================The information contained in this message may be privilegedand confidential and protected from disclosure. If the readerof this message is not the intended recipient, or an employeeor agent responsible for delivering this message to theintended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction,dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictlyprohibited. If you have received this communication in error,please notify us immediately by replying to the message anddeleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs========================================================================================================================The information contained in this message may be privilegedand confidential and protected from disclosure. If the readerof this message is not the intended recipient, or an employeeor agent responsible for delivering this message to theintended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction,dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictlyprohibited. If you have received this communication in error,please notify us immediately by replying to the message anddeleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs======================================================================================================================== The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs ============================================================ |