RE: ASON reqts

["Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS" <[e-mail]>]

Jonathan,

I've looked back over your posts, and have a few comments.

We agree with you that at this stage we should 'focus on the requirements, not the solution'.  Regarding your suggestions on the requirements, so far I think you've suggested 4 additional requirements:

1. Discussion of required behavior at E-NNI and UNI reference points.
2. Support for complete Call/Connection separation, including 0-connection calls
3. Explicit support for connection partitioning in different administrative domains. 
4. Use of transport plane names instead of DCN addresses when referring to transport plane resources.

#2 is clear, and we agree to add '0-connection calls' to the requirements I-D.  #1, 3, and 4 aren't very specific/clear, and we'd like some clarification:

#1 What does 'required behavior' mean here?
#3 Connection partitions are not across ADs, perhaps this issue relates to session split across ADs?
#4 We're using transport plane names, however GMPLS allows for both, perhaps this is an implementation issue?

We agree that if these are ASON requirements (regardless of whether signaling changes
are needed) we should list them in the I-D.  If some are ASON requirements that are not applicable to GMPLS we should list and say so.

Regarding G.7713.1, you pointed out that 'the ATM Forum certainly did add Information Elements in order to support ASON services.'

We agree with this approach, and that's the model we're following here, the IETF should deliver (by WG consensus) the agreed-on 'IEs' (objects) to support the ASON requirements.

Regarding the basis for the ASON requirements, you said that 'draft-lin-ccamp-gmpls-ason-rsvpte-00.txt was originally contributed in June 2002.'

We'd like to point out that the GMPLS-ASON requirements I-D is based on draft-lin-ccamp-gmpls-ason-rqts-00.txt, originally contributed in August 2002.

Thanks,
Jerry