Overview of existing holes/overlaps/conflicts

Home : ITU-T Home : Study Groups : Study Group 15 : OTN

Considering the number and diversity of different organizations working on standardising aspects of OTNT, it is inevitable that some areas will be missed. For the same reasons, some aspects will be addressed in multiple groups, resulting in possible conflicts based on different applications, priorities, or technical expertise. These items need to be identified and addressed as appropriate. The following table lists those that have been identified, the recommended action, and the status of that action.

OTNT: Known OTNT Standardization Holes/Overlaps/Conflicts

No.	Issue	Action	Status
1.	NNI requirements documents being developed in the IETF ccamp and ipo working groups in parallel with the ITU-T work on G.807/Y.1302, G.8080, and many other drafts.	Formal communications, Cross-pollination by company representatives
2.	Parallel work by ITU-T on permanent virtual circuit based on NNI with work at IETF work on both switch service based on optical UNI and permanent virtual connections based on optical NNI
3.	10GbE WAN PHY may not interoperate with interfaces developed using STM-64 specifications	Adaptation in draft revision of G.707, new Draft G.etna (Ethernet over transport network architecture)	Liaisons from T1X1 and Q.16/15, IEEE considering options
4.	IEEE 802.3 Ethernet in the First Mile Study Group addressing work that should utilise Q.2/15 work on physical layer portions of Passive Optical Networks		Communication Statement sent to IEEE 802.3, Q.2/15 selected liaison to help coordinate work
5	Metropolitan optical networks being developed independent of established standard interfaces, assuming they are stand-alone networks	Metro optical networks definition under consideration	Metro applications included in Q.15&16/15 text
6	IaDI standardization has different concepts among the different questions. What is necessary? Is the difference in opinion simply based on different interpretations of the IaDI definition?	Work proposals and discussion in Q.16/15 on IaDI standardization
7	OTN Routing and how to deal with physical impairments on logical routing decisions
8	Optical Supervisory Channel (OSC) has slightly different definitions and views of standardization among the different questions. What is necessary?
9	Ethernet (GbE, 10GbE) is supported as a client of the OTN, but is additional standardization required specific to Ethernet?	Draft G.etna (Ethernet over transport network architecture) under development	Q.11/15 provisionally agreed to IEEE supported mapping of 64B/66B coded 10G Ethernet into SDH VC-4-64c, planned for G.707
10	OTN and ASON Framework Recommendations have been proposed in discussions. G.871 is valid (but out of date) as a framework for OTN. The new Optical Transport Networks & Technology Standardization/Work Plan will provide frequently updated information. Are framework recommendations necessary?
11	Optical transport network terminology is inconsistent across the industry and in some cases even across the ITU-T. What about using G.871 as the holder for normative definitions for OTN?	Proposed terminology and acronyms for virtual concatenation in Q.9/15 – impacts many documents	Currently on a living list
12	Characterisation of optical performance parameters, which would be required for all-optical networking, remain undefined. Which parameters should be used at an all-optical measurement point, how should they be measured, and how should they be used?		Q.16/15 and Q.3/4 both studying the subject
13	Multiple ITU-T SG15 questions have discussed the standardization of OTN GCC contents. Is coordination between the questions required?	NO, each group standardize the application within its scope	CLOSED
14	Optical control plane protocols to support ASON are currently being discussed, revised, or defined in several organizations, including ITU-T SG15, the IETF, the OIF, and the ATM Forum.	Formal communications, Cross-pollination by company representatives