Subject: RE: Alignment of OIF routing requirements with CCAMP ASON routing requirements [Was : Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI]

From: "Sadler, Jonathan B." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:06:07 -0500

Hi Adrian,

Sorry for not responding sooner -- I was out with the family at the
amusement park the past two days.  Something about hurtling down the
hill of a rollercoaster helps put things into perspective.

My comments so far were intended only as a constructive and informative
contribution to the IETF process.  If I have offended, I offer my
apology.

When you and Deborah request my opinion whether these documents meets
the needs of the OIF, I must interpret it as a request for my opinion if
these documents are aligned with the ITU's requirements and architecture
for ASON.  This stems from OIF motions to follow the ITU's requirements
and architecture documents.  All comments have been made from this
vantage point.

Judgment of alignment with the ITU's requirements is something that can
only take place within the ITU after reasoned and informed debate.  It
is not something that an individual can say on the behalf of the ITU
without authorization.  In fact, this is something that Q14/15 discussed
in its liaison to CCAMP dated Nov 2005, well before the IESG review and
publication date of the CCAMP eval document.  The text of that liaison
(found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file210.doc)
reads:

"In general, it is requested that CCAMP notify Q.14/15 when ASON-related
drafts are nearing completion.  While some members of Q.14/15 have
participated in CCAMP activities such as joint design teams, their
participation does not constitute agreement of Q.14/15 itself with the
output. We strongly suggest that CCAMP liaises such documents to ITU for
review prior to publishing as an RFC (for example, just preceding or
following WG Last Call), in order to ensure continued mutual
understanding of the requirements."

Given this statement from the ITU, I do not feel it is my place to state
whether or not the document is in alignment.  All I can say is there is
potential evidence may not be and the documents should be liaised for
comment/agreement before it can be said they are in alignment.

Jonathan Sadler

-----Original Message-----

From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[email-masked]] 

Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:59 AM

To: Sadler, Jonathan B.

Cc: [email-masked]

Subject: Alignment of OIF routing requirements with CCAMP ASON routing
requirements [Was : Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI]

Jon,

Deborah asked your opinion on whether CCAMP's ASON requirements document
and 

evaluation document meet the needs of OIF. You say you are unable to
make 

this personal evaluation. That is surprising. One would expect that you 

would have some sort of clue as:

- a named contributer and member of the design team for RFC4258

- an author of draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-eval

- an active participant in CCAMP where these two documents were last
called

- a named contributer to "Draft OIF Specification for E-NNI Routing
using 

OSPF (Restructured)"

- the editor of G.7715.

Lyndon has stated that he believes there is good alignment and that the 

objective is alignment.

Will you state your opinion?

Thanks,

Adrian

============================================================
The information contained in this message may be privileged
and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee
or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction,
dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by replying to the message and
deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs
============================================================