> - The issue is not really LMP vs TCP. NTIP and LMP-WDM differ in the model
itself. Your
> choice to use LMP to run LMP-WDM on top of it forced you to treat the PXC
and LS as peers.
> NTIP treats PXC-LS relationship as master-slave. Non peer relationship
suits this
> interface better.
I understand this limitation works for your product, but other WDM vendors
have requested a more flexible model.
[Bilel Jamoussi] The model can be very flexible when it's at the slideware stage.
> - To link with other standards bodies, as far as I know T1X1, where the
optical knowledge
> exists, is yet to arrive to a definition of this interface. More
contributions are
> solicited to better understand its need and applications. Given that, I'd
like to
> understand the rationale for the "rough consensus" reached at CCAMP
mailing list. Only 4-5
> messages were posted to the mailing list and mostly from authors of the
OLI requirements
> draft.
> - I don't see harm in having two protocols. The market made its decisions
on the examples > you mentioned, and I am sure it will happen again in this
case.
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.
[Bilel Jamoussi] There is no fiasco -- The ISPs and carriers I have been talking to view this as a very healthy and competitive approach to have a scalable and robust solution(s). Traffic Engineering an IP network (the only application where RSVP-TE is deployed today) is a very narrow segment of the MPLS/GMPLS applications market.
Bilel.