Re: WG Review: Recharter of Common Control and Measurement Plane (ccamp)

Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net> Fri, 03 October 2003 14:08 UTC

Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 14:10:10 +0000
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 07:08:28 -0700
From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
To: Stephen J Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>
cc: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, iesg@ietf.org, Ronald Bonica <ronald.p.bonica@mci.com>, ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: WG Review: Recharter of Common Control and Measurement Plane (ccamp)
Message-ID: <20031003065739.R78380@kummer.juniper.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"

Hi Steve,

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003, Stephen J Trowbridge wrote:

> I think the remark you point out is a good "catch-all" for these
> types of things and should remain, but I suggested the rewording
> for a couple of reasons:
> - The original sentence wording is clumsy and could be misunderstood:
> "Identify requirements for signaling and routing for ASON not currently met ..."
> When I see a statement like "Identify requirements for ...", I tend
> to think of identifying new requirements, and if it is a new requirement,
> of course it is not currently met, but when I get to the end of the
> sentence, I understand that what must have really been meant by the
> beginning of the sentence must have been:
> "Identify WHICH requirements for signaling and routing for ASON ARE not
> currently met". I think the addition of the words WHICH and ARE are
> the minimum to make sure that the sentence is well constructed and not
> misunderstood.

The ASON Routing Requirements Design Team charter explicitly states
what this means.  Isn't that, plus the 'catch-all' good enough?

I will add WHICH and ARE -- they do make it clearer.

> The reason I thought that mention of ITU-T explicitly in this bullet point
> is that ASON requirements come from ITU-T - after all, we are talking
> about (not necessarily IP) transport networks, and by making sure that
> any such work is always joint with ITU-T, we can avoid the famous
> question "What does this have to do with IP?"

That's altogether different.  I don't think we can (or should) avoid
the question, "What does this have to do with IP?" -- that is
fundamental to any IETF work.

"any such work is always joint with ITU-T" -- it's clear from the DT
charter that ASON work will be done jointly with the ITU-T.  It's not
the case that *any* work on transport networks will be done jointly
with the ITU-T, although it would be beneficial to both the ITU-T and
the IETF that each keep the other up-to-date with new developments.

Kireeti.