Re: [CCAMP] Working group lastcall:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-08

["Evelyne Roch" <[e-mail]>]

Greg,
 
The dependency is problematic in networks that follow the ASON
architecture because of the administrative boundaries. I would like to
see implementations that are compliant with this draft and the ASON
architecture. 
 
Evelyne

________________________________

From: Greg Bernstein [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 2:10 PM
To: Roch, Evelyne (CAR:Q840)
Cc: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS); CCAMP
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Working group
lastcall:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-08


Hi Evelyne, why is this dependency problematic? What are you trying to
do and what it the context?

Greg

Evelyne Roch wrote: 

	Greg, 
	 
	There is a problem in the architecture because the
CALL_ATTRIBUTES is carrying group info in the member call, creating a
dependency on the members to achieve VCAT signaling. That dependency is
problematic in a network with administrative boundaries.
	 
	Evelyne

________________________________

	From: Greg Bernstein [mailto:[e-mail]] 
	Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:29 PM
	To: Roch, Evelyne (CAR:Q840)
	Cc: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS); CCAMP
	Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Working group
lastcall:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-08
	
	
	Hi Evelyne, version 04 published in February of 2008 contained a
"Call_Data_Object", with a TLV containing exactly the information and
utilizing the same procedures that we are now using with the
CALL_ATTRIBUTES object. 
	It was recommended by the WG chairs to use the CALL_ATTRIBUTES
object as defined in the MLN-Extensions work rather than defining
another "Call_data_object". None of of the procedures were changed from
04. 
	Is there a problem with functionality? We worked very hard to
find a technique utilizing existing mechanisms to give some support
forthe member sharing scenario. We do not preclude other techniques
being used in the future.
	
	Greg
	
	Evelyne Roch wrote: 

		This liaison was referring to version 04, before the
introduction of CALL_ATTRIBUTES in the draft, exactly where the problem
is.
		 
		In the laison 429, the ITU-T agrees to one call per VCG.
That is the VCAT call (not addressed in the draft right now).
		 
		As far as member calls, members could be in same or
different calls based on application (for diverse routing -> could be
same call, for protection/restoration -> could be different calls). That
is the member call used in the draft. 
		 
		The problem is that CALL_ATTRIBUTES is carried in member
call signaling when it pertains to the VCG, i.e. VCAT call. 
		 
		Evelyne
		 
		 
		 
		 

________________________________

		From: Greg Bernstein
[mailto:[e-mail]] 
		Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 11:16 AM
		To: Roch, Evelyne (CAR:Q840)
		Cc: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS); CCAMP
		Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Working group
lastcall:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-08
		
		
		Hi Evelyne, I'll add some text to the requirements
section to clarify "common pool" per your request.
		The "call concept" usage and "member sharing scenario"
have been previously discussed, liaised, and resolved with ITU-T. 
		
		https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/415/
		
		It includes:
		ITU: "Per Question 5:  We understand that this draft is
only addressing
		the
		constituent server layer call; i.e., not the ASON
multilayer call
		supporting call construct. However, we suggest that you
do not preclude
		extensions to use a call in the VCAT layer.
		
		CCAMP response: As noted above, this is not precluded.
We look forward to
		future communication from you as you progress this
work."
		
		Q14 later responded saying they were satisfied with the
one call
		construct:
		https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/429/
		Greg
		
		Evelyne Roch wrote: 

			Greg,
			 
			Normally, I would expect the requirements
section to be clear enough that it helps define a proper solution
mechanism and clearly sets the scope, not the other way around (i.e. you
need to read the mechanism to understand how the requirements should be
interpreted).
			 
			My main concern is how the "call concept" is
being used with the member sharing scenario, as I mentioned earlier in
this thread. The calls (in the draft) are really member calls, not VCAT
group calls. But the call attributes contain VCAT group information. I
don't want the  member call to attribute carry call information for the
entire VCAT group.
			 
			Evelyne

________________________________

			From: Greg Bernstein
[mailto:[e-mail]] 
			Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 5:34 PM
			To: Roch, Evelyne (CAR:Q840)
			Cc: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS); CCAMP
			Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Working group
lastcall:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-08
			
			
			Hi Evelyne, the common pool is a set of
potential member signals that have been set up using the mechanisms
defined in the draft, particularly the VCAT call procedures. The draft
allows these to be "shared" amongst different VCGs over time. Note that
at any given point in time a member signal can belong to only one VCG.
Note that by the nature of VCAT that these are signals that have the
same source and destination. The procedures section makes this fairly
clear.
			
			Greg
			
			
			
			Evelyne Roch wrote: 

				Greg,
				 
				First, I think we need to further
clarify the requirements as I'm not sure all the readers will interpret
the requirements the same way. What exactly does it mean to be "in a
common pool"?
				 
				Evelyne

________________________________

				From: Greg Bernstein
[mailto:[e-mail]] 
				Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 1:04 PM
				To: Roch, Evelyne (CAR:Q840)
				Cc: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS); CCAMP
				Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Working group
lastcall:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-08
				
				
				Hi Evelyne, the main focus on this work
was to support VCGs with diversely routed routed members. We were asked
to include the member sharing scenario and formulated a method to
accommodate it without significantly increasing the complexity of the
messages involved.  It seems to us that the solution included in this
draft provides sufficient functionality to meet the requirements in the
document. Is there a scenario you think is within the scope of the draft
that is not addressed?
				
				Greg
				
				Evelyne Roch wrote: 

				Greg, see below.
				
				  

				-----Original Message-----
				From: Greg Bernstein
[mailto:[e-mail]] 
				Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 4:09 PM
				To: Roch, Evelyne (CAR:Q840)
				Cc: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS); CCAMP
				Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Working group
				    

	
lastcall:draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-vcat-lcas-08
				
				<snip>
				
				  

				I'm not sure that we have calls of calls
in GMPLS. At the time this
				was written this wasn't deemed
desirable.
				    

				
				The model of calls being supported by
calls is clearly support by ASON,
				whether at the same layer (see G.8080
section 6.7) or different layer
				(section 6.6). I find it highly
desirable.
				
				<snip>
				
				Evelyne
				
				
				  


				-- 
	
===================================================
				Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking
[phone]
				
				  


			-- 
	
===================================================
			Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking (510)
573-2237
			
			  


		-- 
		===================================================
		Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking [phone]
		
		  


	-- 
	===================================================
	Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking [phone]
	
	  


-- 
===================================================
Dr Greg Bernstein, Grotto Networking [phone]