Re: Liaison from ITU-T on CCAMP ASON Routing Evaluation I-D

[dimitri papadimitriou <[e-mail]>]

hi adrian

the rsdt will take the below points into account during document's next 
revision

thanks,
- dimitri.

Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> We have received the following liaison from Study Group 15 of the ITU-T.
> 
> This is informational so no action is required, but obviously the ASON
> Routing Solutions design team will take these items on board in their next
> revision.
> 
> As with all incoming liaisons, this is posted at
> http://www.olddog.co.uk/incoming.htm and will be placed on the IETF's
> liaison Web site.
> 
> You can find the attachments there as well.
> 
> Adrian
> 
> =========
> Title: Reply to Evaluation of IETF Routing Protocols in the Context of
> ASON
>>From : ITU-T SG15, Q14/15
> Contact: Hing-Kam Lam ([e-mail])
> For: Information
> 
> Thank you for informing Q14/15 of the progress of the design team
> operating under the umbrella of the CCAMP working group within the IETF.
> As requested, Q14/15 reviewed the document
> draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval-00.txt and have provided some
> detailed comments directly in the document as marked up text. The marked
> up document is attached below.
> 
> As further context to comments provided in the document:
> -  In "4. Requirements - Overview". It is not required for UNI Transport
> resource names
>    to be included as reachability information in any routing protocol.
> They are
>    resolved to SNPP addresses and SNPP addresses are reachable.
> -  In "5.1 Terminology and Identification".  Text of SP16 from G.8080 is
> attached as it
>    is relevant to the RC ID format.
> -  Q14 would like to see items that are under evaluation to be resolved
> (e.g., cases
>    where Li is given a value different from TE Router ID. Our
> understanding is that the
>    TE Router ID is the address of a point in an IP-layer topology,
> possibly an SCN
>    address. Such separation is permitted by the ASON routing architecture'
> s name space
>    separation concepts).
> -  In "5.3.1 Link Attributes".  Representation of layer resources and
> utilization is
>    required.
> -  In "6. Evaluation Scenarios".  Add cases where multiple Ri announce on
> behalf of an
>    Li or multiple Li.
> -  We suggest that the lexicography draft be added as informative and that
> ASON routing
>    requirements draft be added as normative.
> 
> Q14/15 appreciates the work undertaken to enable protocols that realize
> the ASON routing architecture, as well as the opportunity to review that
> work as it progresses.
> 
> 
> 
> .
>