Re: LMP revision 04

[Yangguang Xu <xuyg@lucent.com>]

Kireeti,

> > Just curious, do you
> > know any IP router, ATM or FR switch that implements LMP to perform the
> > goodies you mentioned above?
> 
> Is that relevant to the CCAMP WG, or just your own curiosity?

Well, you can take it as curiosity... :-)

Some observations and thoughts of this thread.

Some technical issues first. I view myself as a LMP supporter, yet I do think
Michiel and Greg's points are solid. 
-- Some LMP function are generic and some are technology specific. Seperating
them is desirable. That's what we did to GMPLS and it makes a lot of sense. 
Indeed this seperation can make LMP more popular because its generic portion
will be deployed more widely. 
-- Current LMP bundles several functions. Bundling is OK if functions are
closely related. Yet, control channel management, fault management and (pure)
transport link management functions are not so closely related. Each of them is
all well studied (somewhere else) and has its own framework. There are solid
technical/pratical reasons to treat them as different functional areas. 


Then some procedure problems I observed.
-- From this email thread, I can tell that some folks that arguing very hard
don't even know what Michiel and Greg are talking about yet, probally due to
lack of experience or may be interest in SONET/SDH. While, I know Michiel and
Greg are true experts in this area. So I don't think this type of arguing is
constructive. Even worse, audiances also lack of interest and knowledge of this
topic.
-- With whatever hats on, when WG chair and technical advisor are co-authors of
a draft, it makes hard, if not impossible, for other folks to argue against it.
This situation doesn't change even if you let Ron make the call.


Regards,

Yangguang