Liaison statement
Reply to IETF CCAMP Liaison "GMPLS Calls"

State Posted
Posted Date 2007-06-26
From Group ITU-T-SG-15
From Contact Greg Jones
To Group ccamp
To Contacts adrian@olddog.co.uk
dbrungard@att.com
Ccrcallon@juniper.net
dward@cisco.com
sob@harvard.edu
ccamp@ops.ietf.org
sjtrowbridge@alcatel-lucent.com
yoichi.maeda@ntt-at.co.jp
greg.jones@itu.int
Response Contact tsbsg15@itu.int
Technical Contact hklam@alcatel-lucent.com
Purpose For comment
Deadline 2008-01-28 Action Taken
Attachments Reply to IETF CCAMP Liaison "GMPLS Calls" - body text
Body
We understand from your liaison that draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-04.txt
"Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) RSVP-TE Signaling Extensions in support of Calls", is
awaiting formal publication by the RFC Editor, and that it is applicable to
more than just the ASON architecture. There are a few comments we have on
identifiers and addressing for calls that arise from reading
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-call-04.txt. 1.      Call identifiers.  Please
note that G.7713.x series has a call identifier format.  For G.7713.2, this is
described in RFC3474 and has RSVP class num of 230. 2.      Specifying the
destination of a call in ASON is done with a UNI Transport Resource identifier
(G.8080 section 10.2).  For G.7713.2, this is described in RFC3476 as a
Transport Network Address (TNA) and has RSVP class num of 229.  We suggest that
an equivalent should be included in a future ASON applicability draft. At the
time of assignment, both of these class num values were in a range with the
semantics that “RSVP will silently ignore, but FORWARD an object with a Class
Number in this range that it does not understand.�  Thus, usage of these
would not pose problems for RSVP instances that did not process calls.  Use of
these objects has been successfully implemented in OIF interoperability
demonstrations. An electronic copy of this liaison statement is available at:
http://ties.itu.ch/ftp/public/itu-t/tsg15opticaltransport/COMMUNICATIONS/