RE: AD-review of draft-ietf-ipo-carrier-requirements

-----Original Message-----
From: Xue, Yong [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 3:35 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Cc: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]';
'[email protected]'; '[email protected]';
'[email protected]'
Subject: RE: [IP-Optical] AD-review of
draft-ietf-ipo-carrier-requirements


Alex and IP-Optical WG

As the editor of the "Optical Service Requirements" Draft RFC document, I
have collected some input from the authors of this document and want share
them with you and the IP-Optical WG community.

1. We disagree with your and other's comments that this document is simply a
recompilation of the contents from OIF and ITU. Most authors of this
document are active participants and contributors of those requirements in
both OIF and ITU. One of the initial objectives was to bring the
carrier-driven requirements developed in OIF and ITU into IETF to help
IETF/IPO community understand the carrier's needs (remember IETF and OIF/ITU
did not have formal liaison relationship at the time this document was
started). It also contains fair amount of the contents that are unique to
this document.

2. This document was initiated by the IPO WG chairs to ask a group of people
form major carriers to provide optical service requirements for IP layer,
and we did that and more. However, we did not receive much constructive
suggestion as to the suitability of the direction and contents of the
document during past two years. If the problem was seen, it should have been
brought to our attention earlier, not now.

3. This doc was intended to be an informational RFC and tried to reflect the
major high-level functional requirements and architectural framework
envisioned by the carrier community for the intelligent optical transport
network relative to IP and other service networks. Those requirements are
currently refined at OIF and ITU, a consolidated high level requirements
combining ITU ASON, OIF NNI and UNI, and IP over Optical specific
requirements will certainly be a good value this document can bring.

4. For all practical purpose, we see the following options for the document
- Keep the existing scope, but clean up the document and incorporate the
latest requirement development in OIF and ITU by carriers to improve the doc
quality and move forward. Keep the document as a high-level document.
- Reduce the scope of the document and expect major rewrite to focus on the
detailed IP over Optical requirements.
- Drop the document since it's not in the best interest of all the authors
and others  if it lacks the interest and support from IPO WG.

5. Appreciate Dimitri Papadimitriou's spending time to provide specific
comments on the document. We will address all his comments and concerns if
it is decided to progress the document.

-Yong