IETF Logo Mail Archive

Comments on draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-signaling-02.txt

"Bardalai, Snigdho" <Snigdho.Bardalai@us.fujitsu.com> Sat, 19 July 2008 13:15 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AC693A6AA4 for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 06:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.494
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FF33hxN9vKNK for <ietfarch-ccamp-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 06:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A507F3A6864 for <ccamp-archive@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 06:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1KKCAI-00023K-Ie for ccamp-data@psg.com; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:07:58 +0000
Received: from [168.127.0.57] (helo=fncnmp04.fnc.fujitsu.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <Snigdho.Bardalai@us.fujitsu.com>) id 1KKCAF-000232-25 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:07:56 +0000
Received: from rchemx01.fnc.net.local ([168.127.134.104]) by fncnmp02.fnc.fujitsu.com with ESMTP; 19 Jul 2008 08:07:45 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8E9A0.82D1A646"
Subject: Comments on draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-signaling-02.txt
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:08:17 -0500
Message-ID: <A278CCD6FF152E478C3CF84E4C3BC79D03A201D5@rchemx01.fnc.net.local>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-signaling-02.txt
Thread-Index: AcjpoIPfok5fihajSAezXrWY8Y8PRQ==
From: "Bardalai, Snigdho" <Snigdho.Bardalai@us.fujitsu.com>
To: "Ccamp (E-mail)" <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <ccamp.ops.ietf.org>

Hi Greg et al,

I have a few comments on this draft proposal.

1. I believe basic WSON signaling extensions should be separated from signaling based RWA solutions. The reason is the scope of each problem is different.
2. I believe we have not yet established what level of client layer characterization should be included in an OCH layer LSP. For that matter the definition of "Lightpath" is not yet completed and agreed. 
3. Basic WSON signaling should be in alignment with G.872 and G.709 concepts.
4. If optical impairments is not in the current scope why do we need to encode "analog bit rate", will the client layer signal type (i.e. SONET/SDH or ODUk etc.) not be sufficient for your purposes?

Thanks,
Snigdho

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email