[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IETF 55 - CCAMP Minutes
> > I wasn't at IETF. From my reading of the draft and info from this
> > thread, the overlay ID sounds like the P-UNI effort which has been
> > discussed lengthily in OIF. Is my understanding correct? If so, can
> > somebody clarify what happened to OIF about this effort and why it's
> > being brought up in IETF now?
> Your email suggests that a) if the OIF discussed this topic *lengthily*,
> the IETF shouldn't; and b) if the OIF dropped the topic, the IETF
> shouldn't bring it up. What is the basis for these suggestions?
Wow! you do have some imagination. But I wasn't suggesting anything, rather, I
was stating a fact and ask for clarifications. I didn't know OIF totally dropped
the topic. You seem to know why OIF drop this topic, would you please share it
with us? The reason I am asking this clarification is because if OIF experts
dropped it after lengthily discussion, there must be some good reasons. (please
don't guess my intention again.)
> Note that:
> a) the IETF is a standards body, whereas the OIF makes implementation
> agreements, and this is clearly an area that needs standards;
Sure. And I hope that for a type of application, standardization can help us
eliminate options rather than creating more. That's what standardization should
be, isn't it?
> b) the IETF has every right to modify, extend and clarify the use of the
> protocols developed in the IETF (in this case, GMPLS RSVP-TE)
> (which is more than can be said of the OIF); and
1200% support this. Indeed, did I ever argue (or hint) against this?
> c) the IETF has every right to "bring up" topics that other forums may
> or may not already have discussed, lengthily or otherwise,
> especially when it concerns protocols that the IETF developed.
We cool. It's fine with me. But I still hope you get my question answered.