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

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

Rob,

It was my understanding that that BGP Capabilities and BGP Multiprotocol
extensions include a set of code points called "vendor-specific".

For TE, draft-ietf-isis-traffic-02.txt (and presumably the same for OSPF),
there is the following: 

       Sub-TLV type   Length (octets)  Name

           250-254                     Reserved for cisco specific
extensions

More importantly, what I thought Eric was saying was that the capabilities
under
discussion, i.e., transparency and arbitrary concatenation, didn't require
any
changes to the SONET/SDH standards.  Rather, it would require changes to the
cross-connects between the SONET/SDH spans.  Since these are new boxes, it
doesn't
sound like such a big deal.

Thanks,

John
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Coltun [mailto:rcoltun@redback.com]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 4:20 PM
To: John Drake
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [IP-Optical] Re: Proposed text for the concatenation


Hi John,
    valid question -  I don't think this is true for BGP. There are
extensions
to BGP that the working group has adopted.
Which TE drafts are you referring to?

We've said from the beginning that we didn't want to define new "data plane"
functionality for technologies where the data plane is being defined
elsewhere
- whereas some of the functions aren't really new, and in cases might be
de-facto standard
we recognize that certain "data plane" functionality are beyond the scope
of the IETF to define - so this keeps us more in line with (in this case)
the ITU.

Note that IETF has defined the
MPLS data plane - if some other body were to define new functionality
for the MPLS data plane it would certainly cause confusion in the industry.
This standard stuff is certainly not easy.

Is it really that big an issue to just keep them in a separate RFC?

thanks,
---rob


John Drake wrote:

> Rob,
>
> Why isn't the proposed disclaimer sufficient?  If you look in the base TE
> drafts, for example, there are codepoints defined for use by specific,
> named, vendors.  I think the same is also true for BGP.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Coltun [mailto:rcoltun@redback.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 6:54 PM
> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [IP-Optical] Re: Proposed text for the concatenation
>
> All,
>     despite the heated arguments I think the discussion is important to
> have.
>
> I suggest that instead of  tagging non/pre-standard items in the current
> drafts
> that they be put into a separate Informational document  - this is the
> cleanest thing to do.
> We (the IETF) do have a tradition of publishing company proprietary
> protocols
> but not as standard track documents.
>
> thanks,
> ---rob