[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: IETF 55 - CCAMP Minutes
I normally just monitor the CCAMP list, but this line of discussion
concerns me. Perhaps it wasn't intended by Yangguang Xu, but these
types of comments have come up several times recently. They are not
helping us reach a clear industry standard for the optical control
I wanted to add two things to what Kireeti had to say on this topic.
1) The OIF discussion does not represent all those interested in the
work. Sprint is not currently an OIF member, but we are interested in
the results. An open standards body has a much better chance of
representing a broader industry view.
2) One of the most critical factors in any standardization effort is
consistency with existing standards where possible. I hear that the OIF
has improved with regards to understanding the related standards, but
the best place to maintain consistency is where those standards are
developed, be it the IETF or ITU-T. We've all seen how terms get used
differently in different bodies as a clear example.
Regardless of what people would like, every group has full right to
discuss anything it wishes. If the OIF wishes to develop stand-alone
implementation agreements, fine. But if the goal is an industry wide
standard, then discussion at the OIF is not sufficient. A full
discussion is appropriate wherever the work is to be adopted. The best
we can hope for is that the things learned in one group will be clearly
conveyed to help bring the other groups up to the same point without
requiring a full discussion again. We have a great opportunity to work
together on these topics. Let's do it.
Mark Loyd Jones
Technology Planning & Integration
From: kireeti [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: IETF 55 - CCAMP Minutes
On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Yangguang Xu wrote:
> 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?
a) the IETF is a standards body, whereas the OIF makes implementation
agreements, and this is clearly an area that needs standards;
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
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.