RE: WG Consensus Call: draft-swallow-gmpls-overlay-00.txt

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

Let's juxtapose this statement from your e-mail:

"The OIF has a carrier group. At carrier group meetings, only carriers
are allowed to speak. Vendors (like me) can attend and LISTEN, but
are not allowed to speak. In this forum, hours were spent discussing
P-UNI/ILSI and coming to the conclusion that this is not what the
carriers in the OIF wanted."

With this statement from Mark Jones in a 12/3 e-mail: 

"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."

And let us also remember that draft swallow is not necessarily intended
for carriers, let alone 'carriers in the OIF'


-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Trowbridge [mailto:sjtrowbridge@lucent.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 12:10 PM
To: John Drake
Cc: 'Lazer, Monica A, ALASO'; Kireeti Kompella; Khuzema Pithewan;
ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: WG Consensus Call: draft-swallow-gmpls-overlay-00.txt


John,
I wasn't going to get into this, but since you ask ...

This isn't from reading carrier's minds.

The OIF has a carrier group. At carrier group meetings, only carriers
are allowed to speak. Vendors (like me) can attend and LISTEN, but
are not allowed to speak. In this forum, hours were spent discussing
P-UNI/ILSI and coming to the conclusion that this is not what the
carriers in the OIF wanted.

So I have tried to synthesize what I heard there, but I do have to admit
that this discussion still leaves me puzzled. I would be grateful
if some of the carriers could help clear up my confusion:

What puzzles me is that many of the same carriers participate
in ccamp as in OIF. Yet many of the carriers who adamantly opposed
P-UNI/ILSI in OIF are not so adamantly opposing work on this draft,
and some have actually supported it. So I have to wonder, why?

One possibility is that not everyone has recognized that this is
the same proposal (after all, it has a new name). But by now, with
some of the earlier comments in emails like "IETF has every right
to consider propopsals that have been rejected in another forum",
I think that everyone should recognize that these are really the
same. So I would like to hear from these carriers about the following:
- Do they STILL support this work as it has become more clear that
this is (essentially) the same proposal as P-UNI/ILSI that they
rejected in OIF?
- Have requirements changed since the OIF decision?
- Is there really a different market that is appropriate for IETF
to address that was not considered by OIF?

I hope that carriers can help clear this up for me.
Regards,
Steve

John Drake wrote:
> 
> And another thing.
> 
> What gives you the right to speak as though you can read the minds of the
> carriers and synthesize their thoughts?  I think the ones that are
> interested in this topic have spoken on the list without needing your
help.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Trowbridge [mailto:sjtrowbridge@lucent.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 11:08 AM
> To: John Drake
> Cc: 'Lazer, Monica A, ALASO'; Kireeti Kompella; Khuzema Pithewan;
> ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: WG Consensus Call: draft-swallow-gmpls-overlay-00.txt
> 
> John,
> I think that the diversity of opinions indicates a couple of issues
> that are still open for debate.
> 
> There are two proposed interfaces:
> Interface A (using my terminology from the last email): OIF-UNI
> Interface B (P-UNI/ILSI rejected by OIF,
draft-swallow-gmpls-overlay-00.txt
>   currently under consideration for WG status by ccamp)
> 
> I think there are carriers who want interface A who fear that
standardizing
> interface B reduces their chance of getting A. Some work needs to go into
> alleviating that fear. One way is to get rid of interface B. Another might
> be to make it clear that vendors still intend to provide interface A
> instead of using interface B as a way to shortcut things and avoid giving
> (certain) carriers what they really want. For example, just because
> Microsoft sells an Office-XP "Home" edition doesn't prevent corporate
> users who really want it from buying Office-XP "Professional".
> 
> Another issue: are A and B different enough to be worth having two
> standardized
> interfaces? Are the shortcuts in B worth introducing interworking issues
> (will these ever be in the same network, e.g., at the enterprise/operator
> boundary?) and having to deal with those in the standards. Analyzing this
> is probably tricky with documents written in different styles produced by
> different organizations. Maybe we need to bring interface A (the OIF-UNI
> functionality) in as an Internet Draft so they can be looked at side by
> side.
> 
> Regards,
> Steve
> 
> John Drake wrote:
> >
> > Stephen,
> >
> > I couldn't help but notice that you snipped the part of my e-mail
> discussing
> > this topic, to wit:
> >
> > "JD:  If you're planning to assume the role of arbiter for the whole
> > industry, please review the e-mails all of who support accepting the
> > draft as a CCAMP WG document.  In particular I'd review the e-mails of
> > some of your peers:  Deborah Brungard (12/6), Gerry Ash (12/3) (both
> > of whom I think you know), as well as Mark Jones (12/2), and Jean-Louis
> > Le Roux (12/3)."
> >
> > The four individuals I explicitly mentioned work for carriers and the
> > e-mails I mentioned
> > all speak in favor of making the the draft a working group draft.  Also,
a
> > representative
> > from another carrier is a co-author.  And lest we forget, two of the
> > individuals work for
> > the same carrier that Monica works for.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > John
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Trowbridge [mailto:sjtrowbridge@lucent.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 9:41 AM
> > To: John Drake
> > Cc: 'Lazer, Monica A, ALASO'; Kireeti Kompella; Khuzema Pithewan;
> > ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: WG Consensus Call: draft-swallow-gmpls-overlay-00.txt
> >
> > John,
> >
> > John Drake wrote:
> > (snipped)
> > > Snipped...
> > >
> > > >From a carrier perspective, supporting a third UNI alternative will
> > > bring additional concerns regarding interoperability and managing the
> > > network.
> > >
> > > JD:  No one is forcing you to supporting this interface, except
perhaps
> > > potential customers.  To paraphrase George Swallow's 12/3 e-mail, if
you
> > > don't think this interface is useful for you, please ignore it, but
> don't
> > > assume that it is not useful for others.
> >
> > Let's see, a carrier wants interface A.
> >
> > A vendor proposes to standardize another interface B which is similar,
but
> > doesn't quite solve all the same problems as A, and tells the carrier
"If
> > you don't like B you don't have to use it".
> >
> > It seems to me that the carrier concern is that if interface A and
> interface
> > B are both standardized, and if (the/some) carrier(s) want interface A
and
> > (many/most) vendors choose to build only interface B, then the carriers
> > don't get what they want.
> >
> > This fear is what makes people reluctant to progress work on an
interface
> > they don't feel is useful for them.
> >
> > The idea of standards is surely to promote the deployment of
interoperable
> > implementations, but part of accomplishing this is to try to limit the
> > number of "standardized" solutions to the same problem.
> > I think the next debate would be what we really mean by "the same"
> problem.
> > Some arguments have appeared that this interface is directed at a
> > different problem, so I have to ask whether it is different enough
> > to justify standardizing a different solution.
> > Regards,
> > Steve