RE: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15

"Malcolm Betts" <> Tue, 10 March 2009 21:13 UTC

Delivery-date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:14:22 +0000
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:13:17 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15
Thread-Index: Acmhu8Kz9+niIkAMS9CBzWmh4hUiCAACKrVw
From: "Malcolm Betts" <>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <>, <>

Adrian, apologies for the hasty reply - distracted on conference calls
The current wording implies that ccamp is going to do this, perhaps you
could reword to get the discussion around what, in the opinion of Q6, is
it worth doing in terms of measurements on an in service network.

Malcolm Betts
Nortel Networks
Phone: +1 613 763 7860 (ESN 393)

-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Farrel [] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 4:07 PM
To: Betts, Malcolm (CAR:X632);
Subject: Re: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15

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).