Liaison statement
Re-review of ASON Routing Requirements
Additional information about IETF liaison relationships is available on the
IETF webpage
and the
Internet Architecture Board liaison webpage.
State | Posted |
---|---|
Submitted Date | 2007-08-05 |
From Group | ccamp |
From Contact | Adrian Farrel |
To Group | ITU-T-SG-15 |
To Contacts | greg.jones@itu.int |
Cc | Stephen Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@alcatel-lucent.com> Kam Lam <hklam@alcatel-lucent.com> Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu> Ross Callon <rcallon@juniper.net> Dave Ward <dward@cisco.com> Deborah Brungard <dbrungard@att.com> CCAMP Mailing List <ccamp@ops.ietf.org> |
Response Contact | Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Deborah Brungard <dbrungard@att.com> |
Technical Contact | Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Deborah Brungard <dbrungard@att.com> |
Purpose | For comment |
Deadline | 2008-02-27 Action Taken |
Attachments | (None) |
Body |
The IETF CCAMP working group has become aware from the chair of ITU-T Study Group 15 Working Party 3 that there are concerns within ITU-T Study Group 15 regarding the correlation of the IETF RFCs and corresponding ITU Recommendations. The specific RFCs in question are: RFC 4258 Requirements for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Routing for the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON) http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4258.txt RFC 4652 Evaluation of Existing Routing Protocols against Automatic Switched Optical Network (ASON) Routing Requirements http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4652.txt We believe that there may have been some developments in the ITU-T Recommendations since the completion of the RFCs (especially G.7715, G.7715.1, G.7715.2, and G.8080) that may result in desired updates to the RFCs. We also understand that there may be some long-standing concerns about some technical details in the RFCs. In the former case we would welcome pointers to the relevant sections in the Recommendations, and your analysis of what we should do with the referenced material. Specifically, what changes you believe are necessary to the RFCs, and in which sections those changes should be applied. In the latter case we would appreciate a restatement of the concerns. Given the previous attempts to ensure correlation between the work of the IETF and ITU-T, we suggest that it may be advantageous to present these concerns in new words, and providing as much technical detail as possible. Many thanks for your consideration of this issue. Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard IETF CCAMP Working Group Co-Chairs |