Re: CCAMPs....some questions

["Scott Brim" <sbrim@cisco.com>]

On 20 Dec 2000 at 14:55 -0000, neil.2.harrison@bt.com apparently wrote:
> Fred answered that IETF was only responsible for IP protocols and an IP
> client layer.  This is fair enough given IETF history and its modus operandi
> to date.  However, since many operators will require the support of multiple
> client layer technologies (as also borne out from OIF/ITU work on
> requirements), and thus requires that GMPLS must embrace an overlay model,
> the answer Fred gave implies that IETF will not able to satisfy our
> requirements.  If true, then we

Who is we?

> would not be in favour of the CCAMPs area
> (or more generally IETF) developing OTN standards and the work should be
> left to standards bodies who are prepared to address the needs of multiple
> client layer technologies, eg ITU.
> 
> Can you please indicate whether my understanding as expressed above is
> correct or not?

Personally, and speaking generally, I believe that if an engineering
effort does not require changes to the aspects of a protocol which
impact IP then it does not need to be handled by the IETF.  If changes
can be limited to a section of a protocol elements which are specific to
a particular non-IP technology then get your numbers assigned and go for
it, fighting it out with other people dealing with that technology
somewhere else.

Changes to the IP-related parts of the protocol must be done in the
IETF, and in fact in a single WG for coordination.

Corollary: Non-IP sections of any IETF protocol (suite) should be
well-bounded.

The worst fate for all of us would be to grow something like Q.2931,
with myriad top-level information elements which were defined by
multiple groups, overlap in potential use, and are often not
well-defined outside of the area of concern of the groups which defined
them.

...Scott