RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]

hi jonathan

> Regarding Topic 2:
> 
> The IETF requirements and evaluation documents don’t make any specific 
statements about the fitness of IETF protocols for ASON routing. 
> CCAMP has not finished (started?) a document that makes any specific 
statements about OSPF.

section 7 of the eval. doc (Summary of Necessary Additions to OSPF and 
IS-IS) is probably what you're looking at; the evaluation doc proposes a 
clear path to achieve these extensions

the OSPF sol. doc was polled on this list starting from last IETF meeting, 
yes, it may look like slower than expected but i privilege reviews & 
quality over rush
 
> Again I ask, wouldn’t it be better to look at this document which has 
been implemented by many vendors, and successfully interoperability 
> tested many times over many years to see what can be leveraged instead 
of starting from scratch?

IETF evaluation doc outcomes and guidelines are not aligned with OIF 
evaluation outcomes - Section 4.1 of the OIF IA (you will also find here 
the rationale for the pointer to that section in the proposed liaison 
text) and assumption on addressing spaces makes the OIF extensions not 
reconcilable; this is the specific reason why OIF alignment should -if so 
desired by OIF- start from the protocol evaluation phase - 

i agree with deborah here, CCAMP should send this doc to OIF for 
consideration. 

thanks,
- dimitri.