Re: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Tue, 10 March 2009 19:16 UTC

Envelope-to: ccamp-data0@psg.com
Delivery-date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:18:33 +0000
Message-ID: <6B1905A9CDCD48B199A5F340898D7DD5@your029b8cecfe>
Reply-To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Re-Updated Draft Liaison to Q6/15
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:16:53 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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