RE: [IP-Optical] Re: Proposed text for the concatenation

["Lyndon Ong" <lyndon_ong@eudoramail.com>]

Hi,
 
It cannot be "proprietary" in the sense that you still need at least 2 sets
of people to implement it,
if only 1 person implements it that will cause it to be removed.  You could
argue that this may lead to a
feature that is weak and not useful because only a few implement it (and of
course this NEVER 
happens with ITU-T specs ;o) but not that it is proprietary as in 1 vendor
only.
 
Marking the document to show where something is not (currently!) in the ITU
standard seems like
a fair solution, and we can put this discussion to bed.  If on the other
hand there is a technical 
concern, this should be expressed.
 
Cheers,
 
Lyndon

-----Original Message-----
From: Guo-Qiang Wang [mailto:guoqiang@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 7:31 AM
To: 'Maarten Vissers'; Dimitri Papadimitriou
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; ip-optical@lists.bell-labs.com; q11/15; t1x1.5
Subject: RE: [IP-Optical] Re: Proposed text for the concatenation



Maarten, 
  I agree with your opinion not putting proprietary stuff into GMPLS. The
purpose 
of GMPLS is to define an open protocol platform to support public/private
optical NNI 
signaling, NOT proprietary NNI. From interworking perspective, the openness
of 
signaling interface has to be consistent with transport interface. 
  It does not exclude that someone wants piggyback the proprietary over
GMPLS. 
It is O.K as long as they keep this in their cloud and nobody really care
what 
they have inside. But it is not a GMPLS, whatever you call it. 
  There is no need to introduce proprietary into GMPLS. 




Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com