Liaison statement
Response to your review of RFC 4258 and RFC 4652

State Posted
Submitted Date 2008-03-18
From Group ccamp
From Contact Adrian Farrel
To Group ITU-T-SG-15-Q14
To Contacts Greg Jones
CcYoichi Maeda
Stephen Trowbridge
Kam Lam
Dave Ward
Ross Callon
Deborah Brungard
Scott Bradner
Response Contact Adrian Farrel
Deborah Brungard
Technical Contact Adrian Farrel
Deborah Brungard
Purpose In response
Attachments (None)
The CCAMP working group of the IETF thanks you for your
liaison of 29th February 2008 containing a detailed and
thorough review of the material in RFC 4258 and RFC 4652
with cross-reference to the relevant ITU-T Recommendations.

At an ad hoc face-to-face meeting held during the 71st
IETF in Philadelphia during the week of 10th March 2008, we
discussed the content of the liaison and focussed in on the
major points raised. We were helped in our analysis by
experts from Q14/15 who traveled to form part of the group.

The conclusion of the meeting was that it may be beneficial
to revise RFC 4258 (the RFC that expresses the requirements
for ASON routing) to be sure that it covers all of the
requirements in the latest versions of the ITU-T
Recommendations. This revision will be known as RFC4258-bis
until it is published as an RFC in its own right.

We are establishing a team of people interested in helping
with this work. We expect members of the team to actively
contribute with text that they write - opportunities to
review the material will be provided separately. Any
individual wishing to participate in this team should send
email to Adrian Farrel ( who will
coordinate the team. Please do not consider your request to
have been received until you receive an acknowledgement.

Once the team has been established and has started work, a
dedicated IETF mailing list will be set up to allow free
discussion of the work as it progresses. Details of how to
subscribe to this list will be widely circulated on the
CCAMP mailing list, the Q14/15 mail exploder, and through
a formal liaison statement.

When the team believes that its work is complete, the
resultant IETF draft will be circulated for review on the
CCAMP mailing list and will be liaised to the ITU-T for
consideration and agreement. It will remain the
responsibility of the team to update the draft to consider
all review comments and prepare the work for publication as
an RFC.

Note that, depending on the results of revising RFC 4258,
it may be determined that RFC 4652 (the analysis of
existing routing protocols against the requirements) also
needs revision. This work would be handled in a similar

At this time, we have frozen work on
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ospf-04.txt (the
protocol extensions to OSPF necessary to make a solution
possible) until we know whether it also needs to be
modified. We expect that by the time of our next meeting
(July 2008) we will know whether or not modifications are

Best regards,
Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard
IETF CCAMP Working Group Co-Chairs