Re: LMP & neighbor discovery

[Michiel van Everdingen <MvanEverdingen@lucent.com>]

Hello Alex,

>  The main point of contention is whether the LMP spec should
>  include neighbor discovery or not.

Agreed.


>  While I agree that neighbor
>  discovery is useful, I do not believe we should stop the LMP spec
>  from progressing.

I don't understand this remark.

I've given very explicit text that can - in my mind - extremely
simple be added as *optional* procedure in the current LMP draft.
As far as I know, I did not receive a single question or single
problem with adding this text into the current LMP draft.

For the text, please refer to
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/ccamp/ccamp.2002/msg00750.html

As this type of neighbor discovery is *optional*, I think it covers
Martin's worry that it has a big impact on vendors that have
implementations according to the current LMP draft.

If there is anything more I can do to help the LMP spec to progress,
please let me know !


>  I suggest that the WG follows the recommendation made by
>  its co-chair (see Kireeti's message on May 29th), i.e., work on
>  the LMP spec is completed without neighbor discovery and folks
>  interested in defining this functionality work together in a
>  _constructive_ manner and come up with a separate draft.

If neighbor discovery is not to be included in LMP, I think there
are at least some clarifications needed in the LMP draft on what
is and what is not supported. Furthermore, some clarifications on
'control channel management' are needed.

Please see also my reaction on Kireeti's message, posted on May 30th.
I would be interested in your reply also !


Thanks,

Michiel


Alex Zinin wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
>  This discussion has been going on for a while and I think it
>  is past the point where it could help the progress of the WG.
> 
>  The main point of contention is whether the LMP spec should
>  include neighbor discovery or not. While I agree that neighbor
>  discovery is useful, I do not believe we should stop the LMP spec
>  from progressing.
> 
>  I suggest that the WG follows the recommendation made by
>  its co-chair (see Kireeti's message on May 29th), i.e., work on
>  the LMP spec is completed without neighbor discovery and folks
>  interested in defining this functionality work together in a
>  _constructive_ manner and come up with a separate draft.
> 
>  Regards,
> 
> Alex Zinin

-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michiel van Everdingen                                           |
| Systems Engineer                                                 |
| Lucent Technologies - Optical Networking Group                   |
| Botterstraat 45, 1271 XL       Phone : +31 35 687 4883           |
| P.O. Box 18, 1270 AA           Fax   : +31 35 687 5976           |
| Huizen, The Netherlands        mailto:MvanEverdingen@lucent.com  |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+