RE: IETF 55 - CCAMP Minutes

[Mark.Jones@mail.sprint.com]

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 
plane.

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.

Regards,

Mark Loyd Jones
Sprint
Technology Planning & Integration
913-794-2139
 

-----Original Message-----
From: kireeti [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 4:52 PM
To: xuyg
Cc: ccamp
Subject: Re: IETF 55 - CCAMP Minutes


Hi Yangguang,

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?

Note that:
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.

Kireeti.