RE: Further communication received from the OIF

["Jim Jones" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adrian,

Thanks for making these documents available to the experts in the CCAMP
working group. In the March 2006 CCAMP meeting, Lyndon Ong presented an
overview of current events in OIF, which prompted discussion on both the
signaling interworking and routing projects. Our liaison is based on the
belief that more communication was needed in these areas. They were sent in
the spirit that you said it is not possible for us to overcommunicate
(though I apologize for the length of the response).

First, here is some background on the documents themselves:

The purpose of the current routing project is to capture experimental
codepoints and TLV formats that were used in multi-vendor interoperability
demonstration events in 2003, 2004 and 2005. These are documented in
Appendix 1 of oif2005.313. This document also contains placeholders
(sections 4.3, 5.3, 6.3, 7.2 and 8.2) where we hope to simply reference ASON
routing extensions defined by CCAMP in conjunction with ITU-T SG15. As
indicated in our liaison letter, it appears that the OIF routing document
and the current CCAMP WG document
draft-dimitri-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-sol-01 are similar and pointed out
differences that could be addressed to achieve alignment. 

The signaling interworking documents include (1) the project plan outlining
the objectives, scope and schedule of work (oif2004.442) and (2) the current
draft interworking document (oif2006.028). As the documents explain, the
purpose is to provide design guidelines allowing implementers to interwork
between IETF GMPLS [RFC3473, RFC 4208] and ITU-T/OIF ASON signaling
protocols [G.7713.2, OIF E-NNI1.0 Signaling, OIF UNI 1.0R2].

Second, please see my responses to your questions, indicated by <JDJ>.

"Please clarify the purpose of the communication with us and the status of
the two documents."

<JDJ>	These documents are sent to help CCAMP understand what work is in
progress in OIF and to solicit technical comments on the work.

"In particular, at what stage in the OIF process are these documents, and by
when are you hoping to receive comments from CCAMP?"

<JDJ>	The routing document (an updated oif2005.313) is planned to go to
straw ballot in the OIF within the next month, and principal ballot by 3Q06.
Please keep in mind the scope of the document is to formally capture
experimental codepoints and TLV formats that were tested in OIF interop
events. It is not to document ASON routing extensions, which we hope to
reference from future IETF CCAMP RFCs. Therefore, we are not asking CCAMP to
review the extensions to ensure they accurately document what was used in
OIF interop tests; we are seeking that input from over 20 member companies
who participated in the tests. We are recommending that CCAMP consider the
experimental codepoints and TLV formats as input toward defining ASON
routing extensions. Since OIF has tested and refined these codepoints over
the last 3 years, we feel that CCAMP could benefit from this experience.
Given the scope of the project, our only request is that the content of the
document be considered in the process of defining ASON routing extensions.

<JDJ> The signaling interworking document (an update to oif2006.028) is
planned to go to straw ballot in 3-4Q06 and principal ballot 4Q06 or 1Q07.
We hope to receive input from CCAMP on our interpretations of the GMPLS
signaling messages and objects and any further suggestions on interworking
techniques or limitations. As explained in section 5 of this document,
further details are yet to be defined on interworking procedures. Therefore
it is more realistic to look for detailed technical input from CCAMP in 3Q
or 4Q06.

"Also, how are you proposing that the OIF will handle any comments received
from CCAMP?"

<JDJ> Any liaison inputs received from CCAMP are uploaded as OIF
contributions and allocated agenda time during quarterly OIF Technical
Committee meetings. Depending on the topic, a subject matter expert from OIF
is asked to present the contribution in the meeting and initiate any
follow-up documentation. For the signaling interworking and routing
documents, this would fall to the editors and contributors, as well as our
CCAMP liaison, Lyndon Ong.

"Can you also confirm the stability of the documents that you have sent. If
you are asking for our review, will these documents remain stable during the
review period or are they being continually updated? If changes are being
made on a relatively frequent basis, from where can people download the most
up-to-date copies."

<JDJ>	As mentioned above, both documents are undergoing updates. I do not
expect the routing document to change significantly before going to straw
ballot, especially the extensions definition in Appendix 1. We can also
liaise any further updates to it resulting from our 3Q06 meeting in early
August, before it goes toward principal ballot. The signaling interworking
document will expand, with more detail being needed in the areas outlined in
section 5.

<JDJ> Normally, OIF does not publicly distribute work in progress, and only
sends liaisons to selected groups on specific topics. With our meetings
being held quarterly, the documents liaised are normally up to date. At our
August meeting, we can discuss possible methods to provide document updates
between meetings as needed. And as you have pointed out, the CCAMP mailing
list is an effective means for public communication for specific technical
points. 

Best Regards,
Jim Jones
OIF Technical Committee Chair



-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 9:34 AM
To: Jim Jones
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Further communication received from the OIF

Hi Jim,

Further to my email of 12th June, can you also confirm the stability of the
documents that you have sent. If you are asking for our review, will these
documents remain stable during the review period or are they being
continually updated? If changes are being made on a relatively frequent
basis, from where can people download the most up-to-date copies to ensure
that they do not waste their time commenting on text that has changed.

Thanks,
Adrian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>
To: "Jim Jones" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: Further communication received from the OIF


> Hi Jim,
>
> Thanks for your recent communication containing the current draft of the 
> OIF Interworking Guidelines and also of the OIF E-NNI Routing 
> Specification. I am sure that the CCAMP participants will read these with 
> interest.
>
> Can you please clarify the purpose of the communication with us, and the 
> status of the two documents. In particular, at what stage in the OIF 
> process are these documents, and by when are you hoping to receive 
> comments from CCAMP? Also, how are you proposing that the OIF will handle 
> any comments received from CCAMP.
>
> Many thanks,
> Adrian
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 6:55 PM
> Subject: Further communication received from the OIF
>
>
>> 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)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>