RE: Optical Link Interface

["Osama Aboul-Magd" <osama@nortelnetworks.com>]

John,

 

I think it is unacceptable to misrepresent private conversations. Please stick to the issues.

 

Regards;

 

Osama Aboul-Magd

Nortel Networks

P.O. Box 3511, Station "C"

Ottawa, ON, Canada

K1Y - 4H7

Tel: 613-763-5827

e.mail: osama@nortelnetworks.com

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Drake [mailto:jdrake@calient.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 2:37 PM
To: 'Andre Fredette'; Aboul-Magd, Osama [CAR:1A00:EXCH]
Cc: Jonathan Lang; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Optical Link Interface

 

As an aside, the LMP-WDM and NTIP authors did have several phone conferences prior to the last IETF, and the NTIP authors indicated that folding the contents of LMP-WDM draft into the NTIP draft would be an acceptable solution to them.  Presumably this would allow it to be called NTIP.

 Since then, they've also indicated that the LMP-WDM protocol is fine, but it can't have the letters LMP in its name.

Thanks,

John 

-----Original Message-----
From: Andre Fredette [mailto:fredette@photonex.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:11 AM
To: 'Osama Aboul-Magd'
Cc: Jonathan Lang; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Optical Link Interface

Osama,

[Note: I tried to trim this note down to the key arguments so that it is easier to follow.]

My main argument (and I believe it is shared by the rest of the LMP-WDM co-authors) is as follows:
1. LMP exists.
2. LMP solves most of the OLI problems,
3. Therefore, let's use LMP.

Osama's main argument is:
1. I don't think LMP should exist.
2. Therefore let's create a new protocol.

Given that the members of the working group have decided that LMP will be developed, I don't think Osama's argument is reasonable.

At 10:41 AM 7/25/2001 -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote:

        [Osama] what is the limitation here? Are you saying having a simple design is a limitation? Not everything has to be complex.

[Jonathan]  Other DWDM vendors are not happy with the master-slave model.  Also, the claim that NTIP is simple is an explicit assertion and you seem to be trying to make an implicit assertion that LMP is complex.

On the master-slave issue.  There is clearly some information that the line system does not need.  For example, I don't expect the Link Characteristics need to be advertised from OXC to OLS.  I think this works fine within the context of LMP.

You have made claims of complexity, but have never been able to back them up with fact.

Given the CR-LDP fiasco in MPLS, it was clearly stated by the ADs and

Working Group chairs in Minnesota that only one protocol will progress in

the IETF.

       

[Osama] I don't understand why CR-LDP and RSVP-TE have been brought to this discussion. This is a completely different situation. LMP hasn't seen the  wide deployment that RSVP-TE has. The example is inadequate.

[Jonathan] CR-LDP and RSVP-TE were both being developed prior to either one of them being widely deployed.  The effort involved in developing 2 protocols concurrently to do the same thing is widely perceived as being counter productive.

Given the choice between specifying and implementing two protocols that do basically the same thing and one, I think the choice should be clear.

Andre