Subject: Incoming communication from the OIF

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:57:00 -0000

We have received the following communication from Jim Jones, chair of the Technical
Committee of the OIF.

You can see the original version at http://www.olddog.co.uk/incoming.htm

Cheers,
Adrian

========

November 5, 2004
Mr. Adrian Farrel, [email-masked], IETF, CCAMP Working Group Chair
Mr. Kireeti Kompella, [email-masked], IETF, CCAMP Working Group Chair
Re: IETF Response to Results from OIF World Interoperability Demo

Dear Adrian and Kireeti,
Thank you for your responses to our liaison regarding our Supercomm Interoperability
Demo. We appreciate the time and effort that was spent reviewing our liaison and your
detailed reply, and hope for continued cooperation between our groups.

In response to your questions, we have the following information:
- Regarding compliance with ASON: there are no compliance "tests" for ASON,
however OIF has established a close liaison relationship with ITU-T over the past few
years and has aligned its specifications closely with the ITU-T ASON specifications,
especially G.8080, G.7713 and G.7713.1/2/3. We worked with ITU-T leading up to the
Demo to make sure that our activities were considered supportive of ASON and
welcomed by ITU-T.
- Regarding the use of the term "domain": we have been following ITU-T G.8080 in the
use of the term "domain". We are aware that an amendment to G.8080 is in progress in
ITU-T. We are following work on refinements to the definition of "domain" in G.8080
and expect that this work will also be liaised to IETF when complete.
- Regarding the issue of loss of RSVP signaling adjacency: we thank IETF for the
suggestion to utilize the procedures in draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions for
this case, which would result in the associated link being made unavailable for new
connection requests. However, we note that the trigger identified in that draft is the
restart of an OSPF instance, which is an independent event from loss of RSVP signaling
adjacency due to DCN failure. Consequently we request that IETF consider the addition
of loss of RSVP signaling adjacency as a trigger for the procedures identified in
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions.
- Regarding reachability advertisement: we also thank IETF for the suggestion to use
the reachability advertisement document referenced in the liaison response, and would
request also that each address entry be supplemented to include a mask length, as the
reachable endpoints addresses may be summarizable. Including a mask would also
allow for address packing as shown for the Extended IP Reachability TLV in RFC 3784.
- Regarding the scope of OIF work, the existing Implementation Agreements for the
UNI and E-NNI are SONET/SDH oriented, however planned UNI 2.0 features include
support of additional services including G.709, sub-STS-1 signal types and Ethernet
interfaces (using the same solutions from existing CCAMP documents). We understand
that the ASON architecture itself is applicable to any layer network, existing and
future, and are phasing our work based on input from our carrier members on
capabilities that are of greatest importance to them.
- As a clarification, all Implementation Agreements represent fully ratified
documents, and are published on the OIF website after being voted on and approved by
the OIF membership. Current Implementation Agreements include the UNI 1.0R2 and the
Intra-Carrier E-NNI Signaling 1.0 specifications, available for open public access at
http://oiforum.com/public/impagreements.html.

Sincerely,
Jim Jones
OIF Technical Committee Chair
cc: [email-masked]

---

From: dimitri papadimitriou <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:10:05 +0100

hi adrian - thanks for fwd'íng - reading here between the lines i guess 
there are two points to be addressed (others be "informational")

1. issue of loss of RSVP signaling adjacency to trigger procedure of 
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions

2. and the reachability advertisement

thanks,
- dimitri.

Adrian Farrel wrote:

> .

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:32:55 -0000

You're right Dimitri,

There are only a couple of small points to respond to.
I'd welcome suggestions of text.

> draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions

My view is that no change to the base spec is needed or appropriate, but we'd be happy to
see ann Applicability I-D if someone want to write one.

> 2. and the reachability advertisement

I admit to being confused by the prospect of summarising TNAs.

Adrian