Subject: New Liaison Statement, "Multi-Layer Networking (MLN) Work in CCAMP"

From: Adrian Farrel (IETF CCAMP WG) <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 07:21:05 -0400

Title: Multi-Layer Networking (MLN) Work in CCAMP
Submission Date: 2007-04-04
URL of the IETF Web page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaison_detail.cgi?detail_id=315 
Please reply by 2007-05-18

From: Adrian Farrel(IETF CCAMP WG) <[email-masked]>
To: ITU-T Q14/15(Greg Jones <[email-masked]>)
Cc: Stephen Trowbridge <[email-masked]>
Kam Lam <[email-masked]>
Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Dave Ward <[email-masked]>
Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
CCAMP Mailing List <[email-masked]>
Reponse Contact: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Deborah Brungard <[email-masked]>
Technical Contact: Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
Deborah Brungard <[email-masked]>
Purpose: For action 
Body: The CCAMP working group notes your request to review its work on Multi-Layer 
Networking (MLN) as indicated in your liaison "Liaison Statement to CCAMP 
responding to ccamp liaison of 21 February 2007" dated March 2007.

We are nearing completion of our analysis of the requirements for MLN, and 
our evaluation of existing protocols, so now is an appropriate time for you 
review this material, and we would be grateful for your comments on or 
before the deadline marked above.

The requirements work can be found at 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-reqs-02.txt
The protocol evaluation is at 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-mln-eval-02.txt

In your review of this material, it may be helpful to pay particular care to 
understand the definition of MLN that is used. It may also be helpful to use 
some of the terminology interpretation presented in RFC4397.

The CCAMP working group also anticipates working on protocol extensions to 
fill the lacunae identified by the protocol evaluation Internet-Draft. An 
individual submission on this subject may be found at 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-papadimitriou-ccamp-gmpls-mrn-extensions-03.txt, 
but the working group has yet to make a decision about whether to accept 
this as the basis for the work.

We note that in a liaison dated February 2004 discussing the signaling 
requirements for ASON and reviewing draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-reqts-05.txt 
you said:

    11. G.8080 defines the ASON control plane as applying to a
        single layer.  Some examples in the draft involve multiple
        layers.  While not precluded by implementations, a suggested
        replacement example is contained in the marked up copy that
        is single layer.

Could you please confirm your current view of the definition of the ASON 
control plane in G.8080. Does the ASON control plane now apply to more than 
one layer? Could you please provide references to the appropriate sections 
of your Recommendations.

Best regards,
Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard
Co-chairs, IETF CCAMP Working Group
Attachment(s):
No document has been attached