RE: Optical Link Interface

[Andre Fredette <fredette@photonex.com>]

Comments inline. 

At 02:51 PM 7/25/2001 -0400, Osama Aboul-Magd wrote:
> Andre,
>
> This is a misrepresentation of
> my argument. 
> My argument is:
> - LMP is at best optional. 

This is your opinion.  The members of the CCAMP working group have
decided that LMP is useful and needs to be specified.

> Not
> everyone is going to implement it. 
> - Let's not try to force it on everyone.

The way I read this is that you don't plan to implement LMP, so you want
to make it harder for those that do?


> Therefore
> your argument to use LMP is not reasonable.
>
> 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: Andre Fredette
> [mailto:fredette@photonex.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 2:11 PM
> To: Aboul-Magd, Osama [CAR:1A00:EXCH]
> 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