Re: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 10 March 2009 20:06 UTC

Envelope-to: ccamp-data0@psg.com
Delivery-date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:07:34 +0000
Message-ID: <B9E23F159701400386962EC57540A5A8@your029b8cecfe>
Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "Malcolm Betts" <betts01@nortel.com>, <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:06:47 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Malcolm,

> Adrian, I don't like either paragraph....

Consensus is a slippery beast.

> The point I was attempting to raise, and I think Enrique made
> a similar point, is that we should phrase the liaison to stimulate
> a discussion with the experts in Q6 on the value of making
> measurements on active optical paths.

I don't object to this discussion, or any other discussion.

Maybe we need to separate measuring impairments on the idle components of an 
OLS while other components may or may not be active (which is what I thought 
people wanted to do), and measuring impairments on active components (which 
I had not heard people suggesting they would do).

A