RE: Optical Link Interface

[Vijay Gill <vijay@umbc.edu>]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Bilel Jamoussi wrote:

>
>
> However, NTIP addresses an immediate need and does not HAVE to be based on
> LMP.
> [John Drake]
> Well, there is a immediate need for a protocol that can support the OLI.
> However, as you pointed out, since NTIP is slideware, it can't be an
> immediate solution to that immediate need.
>
> [Bilel Jamoussi] John, you have a bad reputation of putting words in
> people's mouths -- Don't use that style with me!!
> try to stay professional

Folks, lets try and keep this clean please.

Removing co-chair hat.

From an operators perspective, I'd much rather that my vendors (and the
coders who have to code these protocols up), concentrate on implementation
and maintenance of fewer protocols. This tends to make the code robust and
the more robust code is (and we are all aware of the state of the software
in the internet), the fewer pages. The fewer pages I get, the happier I
am. The implementors have spoken on the NTIP vs LMP-DWDM, and as an
operator, I _will_ be spending money where I feel the most comfortable,
and as of now, I'm tending towards the implementors who think that
extension of LMP is easier for them than writing up NTIP from scratch.

Hat-on.

So lets try to quickly focus on the resolution of this issue. We've been
bickering back and forth over this for far too long.

thank you

/vijay