RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

["Ong, Lyndon" <Lyong@Ciena.com>]

Hi Dimitri,

Understood, I was just taken aback by the idea that the demonstration
was
somehow "rigged" (by little elves?)

BTW it's not entirely clear what the testing process is to go from
Proposed to
Draft, the reports vary considerably in detail.   Some just list the
number
of implementations, without any test results.

Cheers,   

Lyndon

-----Original Message-----
From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
[mailto:Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:53 AM
To: Ong, Lyndon
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Drake, John E; owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

lyndon - i don't think the issue is exactly there ;-)

the point is that having repeated demos and argue on its significance by
the number and the affiliation of the participants does not make it
necessarily a proof of validity both in terms of implementation and for
what it related to the protocol arch./interoperability
- this is the point i think john wants to make -

so your question: how does IETF "validate" then ... well the answer by
using the RFC2026 standard process - the reports on implementation
following that process can be found at
<http://www.ietf.org/IESG/implementation.html>

for what it relates to MPLS/GMPLS there is addditionally an initial
launching process for starting the effort: 
the so-called MPLS/GMPLS change process - which is more clearly
formalizing current practices when a new effort is started -

hope this answer your question
- dimitri.
 




"Ong, Lyndon" <Lyong@Ciena.com>
Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
26/07/2006 00:22
 
        To:     "Drake, John E" <John.E.Drake2@boeing.com>, 
<ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI


I confess it was all rigged, John.  Little midgets were inside the 
equipment plugging
fibers here and there and typing RSVP messages into mini keypads.
From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf 
Of Drake, John E
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 3:08 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ong, Lyndon [mailto:Lyong@Ciena.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:39 PM
To: Drake, John E; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

Hi John,
 
If you wish to discuss how the tests were carried out, you can talk to
the 

7 major carriers that provided lab sites and the 13 router and switch 
vendors that participated
in the 2005 demo. 
 
JD:  Just as I suspected 
 
In what sense does IETF use the term interoperability test? 
 
JD:  You know, the stuff required to advance to proposed standard
 
Is there an RFC on this? 
 
JD:  I'm sure.
 
I was unaware that IETF ran interoperability tests. 
 
JD:  I didn't say it did, and I don't know if it does. 
 
Cheers,
 
Lyndon

From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf 
Of Drake, John E
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:28 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

 Snipped
 
 Regarding Topic 2:
 
 
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? 
 
JD:  I noticed that Jonathan has put in this plug several times.  I am 
wondering whether these events are truly interoperability tests, in the 
sense that the IETF uses the term, or rather rigged demos?  I seem to 
remember that the OIF characterized itself as a marketing organization.