Andre,
Please go
ahead and implement LMP. As I mentioned it is optional, and that is your
choice. My argument applies to LMP-WDM.
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
3:47 PM
To: Aboul-Magd, Osama
[CAR:1A00:EXCH]
Cc: Jonathan Lang;
ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Optical Link
Interface
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