Re: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15

[Dan Li <[e-mail]>]

Adrian, all,

I think we should not state where and how to get these link impairments, we may only say our GMPLS protocols can support to carry these link impairments which has been defined (or may be defined in the near future) in ITU-T standards.

To stimulate the discuss in Q6, we can ask for their suggestions on the list of link impairments, and would like to know how ITU-T gets it.

Regards,

Dan




  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Adrian Farrel 
  To: [e-mail] 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:16 AM
  Subject: Re: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15


  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"
  - refer to "ITU-T standards" rather than "mechanisms
    and definitions defined by the ITU-T"

  Thanks,
  Adrian