Re: Further communication received from the OIF

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

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)
>
>
>
>
>