Reply to IETF CCAMP Liaison "GMPLS Calls"
|From||ITU-T SG 15 (Greg Jones)|
|To||IETF CCAMP WG (email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org)|
|Ccemail@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com|
|Deadline||2008-01-28 Action Taken|
|Attachments||Reply to IETF CCAMP Liaison "GMPLS Calls" - body text|
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 â€œRSVP will silently ignore, but FORWARD an object with a Class Number in this range that it does not understand.â€? 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/