RE: Arbitrary concatenation proposals

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Zhi-Wei Lin [mailto:zwlin@lucent.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 5:49 AM
To: John Drake
Cc: 'Mannie, Eric'; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; ip-optical@lists.bell-labs.com;
q11/15; t1x1.5; 'rcoltun@redback.com'; 'kireeti@juniper.net'; Dimitri
Papadimitriou (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Arbitrary concatenation proposals


Hi John,

Yes, the draft you referred to contains both arbitrary as well as
transparency. But you need to look at the context for that ID.

The I-D was submitted as a way to "enhance" the existing codepoints. I
did not try to specify what should or should not belong. And as I said
many times now, I am not requesting that these all be moved. I merely
want to know the metrics for including things.

JD:  So your comments last week ("if an idea stinks, it doesn't matter
how many times some idea is presented, it still stinks that many times"
and "if you see a million flies eating feces, would you also eat?" are
to be considered a momentary aberration?   

Whether arbitrary/transparency should remain in GMPLS or as a separate
document again is up to the group, but I still like Rob's suggestion.

JD:  AS I indicated in my notes to Rob, there is precedent to keep the
functions in the draft, marked as non-standard, which was the original
proposal. 

So let me propose that we try to cut this thread short, and see where we
are:

* I've outlined the features of both arbitrary and virtual in an earlier
email (I think it was technical). Any comments? Should we include that
type of comparison in the document?

JD:  I don't care, as long as it is correct.

* Yes, transparency is in the OIF carrier requirements document. So then
again, as I mentioned many times, if our metric is "more than 2
vendor/carrier" or "more than half of vendor/carrier community" or "it
should be included because", then let's include it. But where would it
be included? In the GMPLS or a separate document? Either way, it will be
captured.

JD:  Why do we need to invent a new methodology for deciding whether to
include transparency and arbitrary concat?  The existing methodology
which is, as I understand it, rough consensus, should be sufficient.

* There has been several discussions/questions about GMPLS handling of
different exception cases. Have that been studied in detail? Is the RSVP
or CR-LDP currently able to handle these? For example, how should the
system behave when a signalling channel fail, but the transport link is
still up? Should we have a single behavior or could the behavior be
provisionable?

JD:  What does this have to do with transparency and arbitrary concat?
There is a section written by Jonathan, which is perpetually not included
in new revisions of the GMPLS base signalling draft, that describes this.


* There has been some comments about meeting various requirements. Is
the requirement supposed to come before the protocol is going to last
call, or it doesn't matter (i.e., we'll change the protocol if it
doesn't meet requirements), or requirement is irrelevant?

JD:  As I understand it, we are involved in an iterative process and that
as operational experience with GMPLS is gained, the protocols may have to
be updated.  

Zhi



John Drake wrote:
> 
> This is really odd.  Perhaps Eve would enlighten us on Lucent's change of
> heart
> regarding tranparency and arbitrary concatenation?
> 
> I.e., just last week Zhi-Wei Lin was using the phrases "if an idea stinks,
> it doesn't
> matter how many times some idea is presented, it still stinks that many
> times" and
> "if you see a million flies eating feces, would you also eat?" to describe
> them.
> 
> Certainly, he didn't feel that way when he included them in his draft?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mannie, Eric [mailto:Eric.Mannie@ebone.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 2:33 PM
> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; ip-optical@lists.bell-labs.com; q11/15; t1x1.5
> Cc: 'rcoltun@redback.com'; 'kireeti@juniper.net'; Dimitri Papadimitriou
> (E-mail)
> Subject: Arbitrary concatenation proposals
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> About the industry support for *arbitrary* concatenation, *transparency*
and
> *AUG-X, TUG-X, VTG*, I would like to recommend the reading of the
following
> draft that was presented at the last IETF meeting:
> 
>
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lin-ccamp-ipo-common-label-requ
> est-00.txt
> 
>       "Common Label and Label Request Specification
>         for Automatic Switched Transport Network"
> 
> Abstract: "This draft completes the [GMPLS-REORG] draft and details
> technology specific issues. It proposes different approach and enhancement
> to [GMPLS-SIG] and [GMPLS-SIGEN]...."
> 
> In this draft the authors proposed signal types that combine the coding of
> the type of signal itself (including AUG-X, TUG-X and VTG), plus
> transparency, plus arbitrary concatenation, etc.
> 
> I would like to know if their products support arbitrary concatenation,
> AUG-X, TUG-X, etc ?
> 
> The authors (all from the same company) requested to incorporate their
> proposal for arbitrary concatenation, transparency, and the "group type"
of
> signals into GMPLS. During this meeting, the authors were strongly
convinced
> that their proposal should have been merged within GMPLS. This was also
> extensively discussed by e-mails.
> 
> >Again, in terms of metrics, what is considered "interesting for the
> >industry"? By the vendor community or the carrier community? I just want
> >us to be clear...no more, no less....
> 
> Well, I hope this helps, at least this vendor considered these features
> sufficiently important to write a draft of 16 pages, to present it and to
> defend it.
> 
> Of course, Errera Humanum Est (or something like that :-)
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Eric
> 
> Eric Mannie
> Technology & Standards Strategy Manager
> Network Engineering Strategy
> EBONE
> 
> Terhulpsesteenweg 6A
> 1560 Hoeilaart - Belgium
> 
> Tel:    +32 2 658 56 52
> Mobile: +32 496 58 56 52
> Fax:    +32 2 658 51 18
> E-mail: eric.mannie@ebone.com