Re: ASON Opacity and liaisons

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Kam,

> In particular about the requirements drafts, my intent is just a reminder to
> send on these more finalized drafts to ITU-T SG15 formally.

Oh, most certainly.
My intention is that whenever we finalize a CCAMP draft we will liaise it to all
interested parties.

> Regarding the Q14/15 Februrary liaison statement, in deed it was
> for action about the ASON signalling solutions discussion (not
> signaling requirements).

Well, I see three separate documents from that date.
wd35r1_liaison_ccamp_sig-req.doc has the title "Liaison Statement To IETF CCAMP WG on
<draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-05.txt"
wd34r3_liaison_ccamp_routing.doc has the title "Response To IETF CCAMP WG on ASON Routing
Requirements"
wd33r3_signalling-liaison-to-ccamp.doc has the title "Response to IETF CCAMP WG regarding
Comments on G.7713.2"

Thus, two liaisons were explicitly about the requirements drafts, and one was in response
to the liaison from CCAMP about G.7713.2. It was the third of these that you pointed to in
your orriginal email and it includes some useful background material that will definitiely
be taken on board by the GMPLS ASON signaling draft authors when they work on the next
revision.

Unfortunately, work on the solutions draft has been blocked pending the completion of the
requirements drafts, but it looks like we are about ready to start moving again.

> Nonetheless, liaison responses would have seemed to have been
> a good springboard for stimulating further joint work.

Yes, and when the authors have the oportunity to work on the draft further, I'm sure they
will generate a response.

> Perhaps we can follow up on this together?

I'm sure we can.

Regards,
Adrian