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.
We went through that before and the WG has decided to make
explicit the clarification that the issue is just
between
LMP-WDM and NTIP and not
between LMP and NTIP.
Besides that I think that some of the arguments
advanced are:
1. The issue is not how many protocols
need to be advanced.
2. The choice of advancing a given protocol should be
influenced by whether it is
deployed or likely to be
widely deployed. And
this applies even in the case
of one single
protocol.
3. No matter what protocol(s) is/are
selected,
it is the market who
makes the final decision.
Hamid.
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