Re: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF

[Stephen Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>]

John,
I didn't make this up - the argument was made in some earlier emails.
One example (Eric Mannie, Feb 22):
> If we change the SONET label format there are two issues:
> 
> - already used by the OIF for UNI1.0.
> - already implemented in many boxes.
For the first of these issues, we have the problem that OIF declares
as "final" an implementation agreement built around IDs that are not.
The second is the "pre-standard" implementations I referred to in
my earlier email.
I did use the word "some" since I cannot claim that this is the reason
for everyone who voted for (2), and I did not wish to attribute Eric's
arguments onto everyone else who voted for the same alternative.
Regards,
Steve

John Drake wrote:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Trowbridge [mailto:sjtrowbridge@lucent.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:12 AM
> To: Kireeti Kompella
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: SONET/SDH label agreement for IETF, ITU-T and OIF
> 
> Snipped...
> 
> We know that one reason that (some) voted against (1) was to protect
> pre-standard implementations, which is not a valid basis for making
> standards decisions. It would be good to know if there are other
> reasons.
> 
> JD:  Oh really?  I'm counting at least two assertions here.