RE: Optical Link Interface

["Bilel Jamoussi" <jamoussi@nortelnetworks.com>]

John, apology accepted.

 

the slideware comment is in reference to the "more flexible model" of products vs product limitations -- not NTIP nor LMP-WDM.

 

> - 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.

-----Original Message-----
From: John Drake [mailto:jdrake@calient.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 5:06 PM
To: Jamoussi, Bilel [BL60:1A00-M:EXCH]; John Drake; 'Andre Fredette'; Aboul-Magd, Osama [CAR:1A00:EXCH]
Cc: Jonathan Lang; 'ccamp@ops.ietf.org'
Subject: RE: Optical Link Interface

Bilel,

 

I'm awfully sorry, I was just teasing you.  You had started things with your assertion that LMP-WDM was slideware, but you're right, it was beneath me.

 

Incidentally, I think your note might have had more credibility if you'd sent it privately. 

 

Thanks,

 

John 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bilel Jamoussi [mailto:jamoussi@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 1:48 PM
To: 'John Drake'; 'Andre Fredette'; Osama Aboul-Magd
Cc: 'Jonathan Lang'; 'ccamp@ops.ietf.org'
Subject: RE: Optical Link Interface

 

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