Further communication received from the OIF
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Sat, 10 June 2006 18:04 UTC
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fp7p1-0001rd-Qo for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 14:04:31 -0400
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fp7p0-0005rU-Fu for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 14:04:31 -0400
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1Fp7gt-000A4A-Jr for ccamp-data@psg.com; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 17:56:07 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=ham version=3.1.1
Received: from [80.68.34.48] (helo=mail1.noc.data.net.uk) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <adrian@olddog.co.uk>) id 1Fp7gr-000A3y-MB for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 17:56:05 +0000
Received: from 57-99.dsl.data.net.uk ([80.68.57.99] helo=cortex.aria-networks.com) by mail1.noc.data.net.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #2) id 1Fp7h9-0008Hz-00 for ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 18:56:23 +0100
Received: from your029b8cecfe ([217.158.132.206] RDNS failed) by cortex.aria-networks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 10 Jun 2006 18:56:02 +0100
Message-ID: <032101c68cb7$209e31e0$c2849ed9@your029b8cecfe>
Reply-To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Further communication received from the OIF
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 18:55:50 +0100
Organization: Old Dog Consulting
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jun 2006 17:56:03.0489 (UTC) FILETIME=[23D7D910:01C68CB7]
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 244a2fd369eaf00ce6820a760a3de2e8
Hi, We have received a communication from the OIF. You can see the original files on http://www.olddog.co.uk/ccamp.htm The text of the communication is included below. Adrian === To: Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard, IETF CCAMP WG Co-Chairs From: Jim Jones, OIF TC Chair Copy: Ross Callon and Bill Fenner, IETF Routing Area Directors Subject: OIF Draft Documents Provided for CCAMP Information and Comment Dear Adrian and Deborah, It was reported to us that members of the CCAMP WG expressed interest in reviewing and understanding some of the current activities in the OIF regarding interworking and optical routing protocols. Accordingly, we are attaching current copies of draft documents in progress in these two areas, for your information and comment. Please note that the interworking guidelines draft is based on existing standards specifications from ITU-T and IETF, and the routing protocol draft specifies the requirements on and use of OSPF-TE at the E-NNI, using G.7715/7715.1 as a basis. It documents work that has been prototyped, tested and updated based on OIF demonstrations in 2003-5. It leaves room for protocol extensions to be added as corresponding work in IETF and ITU-T is completed. Some members have reported on draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-sol-01.txt, which initiates work in CCAMP towards defining the protocol extensions needed to meet E-NNI requirements. It was observed that with minor changes some of the extensions defined in the draft could be aligned with those used in working implementations that have been tested in conjunction with OIF interoperability events. Related extensions include the Node IPv4 local prefix sub-TLV and the Local and Remote TE_Router_ID sub-TLV. We believe that a key area needing review is whether the proposed extensions meet the full independence of functional component to physical location provided in G.8080/G.7715/G.7715.1 . I'd also like to note that I have informed OIF members about the discussion of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing-03.txt and the survey of which ERO options are being supported, and asked that they provide any feedback directly to Adrian or the CCAMP list. The OIF continues to be interested in establishing a formal liaison relationship with CCAMP and other IETF WGs as the best way to keep both bodies informed of each others' progress and working in concert, and would like input from the IETF chairs on how to pursue this next step. Best regards, Jim Jones OIF Technical Committee Chair Attachments: 1) Interworking Guidelines project plan (oif2004.442.03) 2) Interworking Guidelines draft text (oif2006.028.03) 3) E-NNI Routing 1.0 draft text (oif2005.313.05)
- Further communication received from the OIF Adrian Farrel
- Re: Further communication received from the OIF Adrian Farrel
- Re: Further communication received from the OIF Adrian Farrel
- RE: Further communication received from the OIF Jim Jones