GMPLS in overlay mode

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Hi Steve,

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Stephen Trowbridge wrote:

> > 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.
>
> As I recall the OIF discussion, vendors were split over the proposal,
> and operators indicated strongly that their needs were better addressed by
> the ongoing UNI and NNI work.

That's useful information.  However, it does not mean that we shouldn't
discuss it in the IETF; nor on the other hand does it mean that we (the
IETF/CCAMP WG) cannot learn from the OIF experience.

> Certainly it would make sense for IETF to take up a proposal that another
> standards body had rejected IF they are trying to address a different market
> or application for which this proposal might be an appropriate solution.

Let me re-iterate: the OIF is *not* a standards body.

Furthermore, if I understood the authors correctly, there *are* addressing
a different application.

> When I suggested that a requirements document might be the correct first
> step here during the meeting, one of the authors described this as a stalling
> tactic. What I had in mind was to use this as a time saving tactic:

The "overlay" document essentially describes a *mode* of using GMPLS.
There are no major extensions; there are a few procedural changes.  It
is basically a clarification document that says that GMPLS (which many
just assume can only be used in "peer" mode) can in fact be used in
an overlay context.

A call for consensus to make this a WG document should indicate whether
folks think this is useful or not.

Kireeti.