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

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

-----Original Message-----
From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 2:28 AM
To: John Drake; sjtrowbridge@lucent.com
Cc: mlazer@att.com; kireeti@juniper.net;
khuzema.pithewan@metro-optix.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: WG Consensus Call: draft-swallow-gmpls-overlay-00.txt


John a small observation:
-	I thought IETF worked on the basis of views from individuals not
those of companies?  So if X from company A says one thing its seems that Y
from the same company A can say something else.  So perhaps you should not
draw these conclusions.


JD:  I think I made the point that individuals from the same company
had different opinions.  I'm not sure what conclusions you think I'm
drawing.
 

-	I count (only) 3 operators responding.  There are a few more
operators out there than that.  So what does this tell us?  Perhaps:
	* they want something else?
	* they don't even care about the stuff being done here (for whatever
reasons, eg no money at the moment, not right time, they are all asleep,
they go elsewhere for their stds, etc)?


JD:  Probably all of the above.


BTW - I note in a later mail you say this draft 'is not for carriers anyway'
(so who is it for?).  However, given that those who you quote support it are
from carriers, and that you seem to be drawing the conclusion that they
represent the views of their company, then have you not got a conflict of
(your own) logic?.  I await my turn to be chastised ;-)


JD:  I think I said not necessarily for carriers.  I was citing the support
of individuals who happen to work for carriers in the context of an blanket
assertion that carriers don't want the Swallow draft.  In this venue that is
the only evidence available.


regards, Neil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Drake [mailto:jdrake@calient.net]
> Sent: 12 December 2002 18:00
> To: 'Stephen Trowbridge'
> Cc: 'Lazer, Monica A, ALASO'; Kireeti Kompella; Khuzema Pithewan;
> ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: WG Consensus Call: draft-swallow-gmpls-overlay-00.txt
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>