Liaison statement
Reply to IETF CCAMP Liaison "GMPLS Calls"

Submission date 2007-06-26
From ITU-T SG 15 (Greg Jones)
To IETF CCAMP WG (adrian@olddog.co.uk, dbrungard@att.com)
Cc rcallon@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/