Re: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15

Giovanni Martinelli <giomarti@cisco.com> Tue, 10 March 2009 22:10 UTC

Envelope-to: ccamp-data0@psg.com
Delivery-date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:11:28 +0000
Message-ID: <49B6E54F.9010405@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:10:23 +0100
From: Giovanni Martinelli <giomarti@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
CC: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1236; t=1236723023; x=1237587023; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=giomarti@cisco.com; z=From:=20Giovanni=20Martinelli=20<giomarti@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Re-Updated=20Draft=20Liaison=20to=20Q6/ 15 |Sender:=20; bh=YPe411iAg9jEEP1PccfVQ4euDE4Djg1Su5ikQSQR4P8=; b=HDC/q5n/YYFDRNjFZnCjMyQ5L74cyBNIT9SxxU/XTL+0lILINywc8aQa1t ft1vkGUDB6noLXSEdAwzEJbPtC0mcU2rCpLCQJW3S6F1ftO0u6QZkJkJe0N+ 0sbEGULVPS;
Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=giomarti@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; );

Hi,

Adrian Farrel wrote:
> Does anyone else have an opinion on the difference between these two 
> paragraphs...
>
>> However, if a service provider chooses to measure optical link
>> impairments on an out of service basis and this can be achieved
>> within ITU-T standards , then this should not be prohibited by
>> the CCAMP protocol mechanisms, and the communication of the
>> information collected should be accommodated within GMPLS"
>
>> However, if an implementer chooses to measure impairments
>> on their device, and this can be achieved within the mechanisms
>> and definitions defined by the ITU-T, then this should not be
>> prohibited by the CCAMP protocol mechanisms, and the
>> communication of the information collected should be
>> accommodated within GMPLS.
>
> There are several differences:
>
> - state impairments are "optical impairments"
> - limit impairments to "link impairments"
> - restrict discussion to "out of service measurements"  
I lean toward the second par.  What is possible or not in term of 
measurement will be to ITU to define.

Cheers
G

> - refer to "ITU-T standards" rather than "mechanisms
>  and definitions defined by the ITU-T"
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
>