Subject: RE: GMPLS Last Calls

From: "Ash, Gerald R (Jerry)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 14:20:28 -0400

Quoting from the CCAMP/IETF-50 meeting minutes re the GMPLS Architecture
draft:

"Eve - Had hoped that CCAMP formation and expression of requirements would
enable us to do more with architecture than reverse architect proposed
solution. Think we should also look at carrier requirements and look for
discrepancies with architecture. 
Curtis - requirements of carriers not being addressed?
Eve - happy to discuss on mailing list in absence of time"

There are still no documented service provider (SP) requirements driving the
proposed GMPLS protocol extensions.  This is inconsistent with the current
initiatives to provide SP requirements prior to protocol extensions being
accepted, such as for protection/restoration, network hierarchy, MPLS OAM,
MPLS/DiffServ TE, multi-area TE, etc.  

Here is a sample of SP requirements that are not being addressed (other
requirements from our perspective are forthcoming):

1. Restoration requirements, particularly in support of mesh restoration,
need to be supported by GMPLS.  For example, Section 7 of the Generalized
Signaling I-D
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-0
4.txt) 
primarily discusses link protection, restoration capabilities are largely
missing and need to be included.

2. Standards explicitly supported by GMPLS, such as G.707, G.709, etc.,
should be clearly identified in the text and referenced in the GMPLS I-Ds,
e.g., in Section 3.1 of the Generalized Signaling I-D, add "G.707 [Reference
G.707] is supported by the Generalized Label Request."

As per Eve's comment at IETF-50, SPs are encouraged to post their
requirements to the list.  It would also help if more SPs were invited to
co-author the GMPLS drafts, to help ensure that SP requirements are more
adequately reflected and addressed.

Jerry Ash
AT&T Labs

-----Original Message-----
From: George Swallow [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 1:52 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: GMPLS Last Calls

This message initiates a last call on four GMPLS drafts.  The last
call is being issued jointly in the MPLS and CCAMP workgroups.

The drafts are:

    1.  Generalized MPLS - Signaling Functional Description

           <draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-04.txt>

    2.  Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions

           <draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-03.txt>

    3.  Generalized MPLS Signaling - CR-LDP Extensions

           <draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-cr-ldp-03.txt>

    4.  GMPLS Extensions for SONET and SDH Control

           <draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-sonet-sdh-00.txt>

The last call closes May 29, 12 pm GMT.

-  V2KG (Vijay, Vijay, Kireeti, & George)

======================================================================
George Swallow       Cisco Systems                   (978) 244-8143
                     250 Apollo Drive
                     Chelmsford, Ma 01824

---

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 11:51:43 -0700

Jerry,

[clipped...]
 
> adequately reflected and addressed.

If someone has anything *substantial* to contribute to the GMPLS
drafts, such person should be invited to become a co-author. This
is *irrespective* of whether such person works for a SP or not. On
the other hand, just because a person works for a SP, doesn't mean
such a person should be invited to become a co-author.

Yakov.