RE: GMPLS Last Calls

[Vishal Sharma <vsharma87@yahoo.com>]

Tom, Yakov,

I agree with you. Although, in all fairness to Gerry, I don't think by
"invited" he meant literally that people should be called in to put
their names on drafts (any drafts, not just GMPLS ones) simply because they
happen to be working for a service provider.
I think what he meant was that more service providers should be involved in
the discussions for various GMPLS features.

I think the point Gerry raised is a good one, and this can always be done
via the MPLS and CCAMP lists. (The current drafts are, in fact, weighted
very heavily in favor of contributors who come from the vendor community,
with one, perhaps two, exceptions.)

Service providers can, however,  certainly provide their inputs over the list 
and
initiate constructive discussion about features
of GMPLS signaling that they would like included in the current signaling 
drafts
(and features of routing that they would like to see in forthcoming routing
drafts). I believe it would be very useful to get some SP input to ensure that
their operational needs are met and that they can transition to using this
work, since they, after all, are the ones who will use
the protocols.

-Vishal


On Thursday, May 24, 2001 12:15 PM, Thomas D. Nadeau [SMTP:tnadeau@cisco.com] 
wrote:
>
> > > As per Eve's comment at IETF-50, SPs are encouraged to post their
> > > requirements to the list.  It would also help if more SPs were invited to
> > > co-author the GMPLS drafts, to help ensure that SP requirements are more
> > > adequately reflected and addressed.
> >
> >If someone has anything *substantial* to contribute to the GMPLS
> >drafts, such person should be invited to become a co-author. This
> >is *irrespective* of whether such person works for a SP or not. On
> >the other hand, just because a person works for a SP, doesn't mean
> >such a person should be invited to become a co-author.
>
>          Yakov is precisely correct. The addition
> of (co)authors to drafts has all to do with their
> (generally significant) input to the drafts (and
> perhaps editing of the actual documents) regardless
> of corporate affiliation. It is not about being
> invited to put their names on the drafts just
> for advertising purposes.
>
>          --Tom