ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: CORRECTION: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational

2003-01-08 15:04:46
Adrian> I am saying that it sounds to me from the discussion that 
Adrian> the ITU has not yet reached consent. It seemed to me that 
Adrian> if the draft is intended to document the ITU preferences as 
Adrian> informational, it would be as well to wait until the ITU has
Adrian> fully signed off. I don't see any rush for this.

Loa> ok - I can see the difference - and it seems that you are correct. If
Loa> the ITU discussion still has some way to go before the discussion
Loa> settles and the preferences better known - wouldn't it be 
Loa> appropriate to wait until this happens?

ASON Signaling Recommendations G.7713.2 (GMPLS RSVP-TE) and G.7713.3 (GMPLS 
CR-LDP) are proposed for consent at the upcoming SG15 meeting, 20-31 January 
(Geneva).  A Liaison was sent to the IETF containing Recommendation text, but I 
can't find it on http://www.ietf.org/IESG/LIAISON/.

Both documents propose detailed protocol specifications including new TLVs 
(e.g., crankback TLV in G.7713.3).  The intent of these Recommendations is 
unclear.  

If these are statements of 'ITU preferences/requirements' which are made known 
to the IETF through the Informational RFCs, such as Osama's and Zhi's, then 
fine.  IETF can then take up the 'preferences/requirements' and consider them 
for upgrading RSVP-TE and CR-LDP protocols (although CR-LDP is capped).  

However, if they are intended as alternative protocol specs competing with the 
IETF specs, then that's a problem.  Which spec does a vendor implement and an 
operator use, given interoperability needs, etc.?  It would be analogous to the 
IETF specifying their version of G.709.

A clarification of the intent of these Recs. would be helpful.

Jerry Ash