RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

["Drake, John E" <John.E.Drake2@boeing.com>]

Lyndon,

Google "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a
rigged demo."

Thanks,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ong, Lyndon [mailto:Lyong@Ciena.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:10 AM
> To: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Drake, John E; owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
>  
>