Bilel,I don't see evidence that there is more than one vendor implementing NTIP.
[Jamoussi, Bilel ] so what? why is this relevant at this point?I don't see any reasons to standardize it at this point.
[Jamoussi, Bilel ] both NTIP and WDM-LMP??? what about the OLI requirements? are you proposing we ignore them?On the other hand, I have seen support for LMP-WDM from several vendors in the past few days.
[Jamoussi, Bilel ] vendors of what?Martin[Jamoussi, Bilel ] Do you have any comments on my proposal to progress the work?Bilel.-----Original Message-----
From: Bilel Jamoussi [mailto:jamoussi@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 11:14 AM
To: 'Andre Fredette'; 'ccamp@ops.ietf.org'
Subject: RE: Optical Link InterfaceAndre,
2 comments on you statistics, then a proposal to progress:
1. The stats are not that significant, since there was no "last call" period announced in advance to gauge community interest.
2. I do not think IETF uses company affiliation when measuring consensus. If it did, then the fact that 3 from Nortel are supporting NTIP, is an indication that there is an immediate need for NTIP given Nortel is a key player in this space.
------
All,
Now to focus the discussion back on the OLI solutions (NTIP or LMP-WDM, or a merged version),
- There is consensus on a single protocol which I respect.
- Key distinctions between NTIP and WDM-LMP:
1. WDM-LMP assumes that LMP is a priority, people will implement LMP, hence WDM-LMP is a natural extension. The issues here are:
(a) this assumption is not accurate, the functions of NTIP (or WDM-LMP) are more urgent than LMP
(b) there is significant baggage to be carried from LMP down to the WDM-LMP2. WDM-LMP assumes a peer model between the OXC and the WDM system. The issue:
- this model doesn't reflect the reality that OXC and WDM are two different devices - the OXC-WDM relationship is client-server one.
I suggest merging the two proposals as follows:
- remove unnecessary LMP baggage
- adopt a client-server model
- allow for TCP as the transport
- clarify a simplified autodiscovery mechanismBilel.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andre Fredette [mailto:fredette@photonex.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 2:52 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: Optical Link Interface
From my count on the mailing list we have the following results so far:
LMP-WDM: 8
NTIP: 3 (All from Nortel)
Agnostic: 1And then there are the other 16 co-authors of LMP-WDM who haven't posted
(perhaps because they don't think they have any new points to add).Andre
At 02:00 PM 7/26/2001 -0400, Martin Dubuc wrote:
>Kireeti,
>
>I have been following this thread with great interest. I agree with your
>conclusion that we should pick one protocol and move forward.
>
>You are talking about WG reaching a consensus. I cannot see how this is
>possible given the two very different views I see in the latest email
>exchanges.
>
>How can we resolve the current dispute? What forum should we use to make
>a final decision on this?
>
>Martin
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 9:57 PM
>To: jamoussi@nortelnetworks.com; kireeti@juniper.net;
>osama@nortelnetworks.com
>Cc: bon@nortelnetworks.com; ccamp@ops.ietf.org;
>vasants@nortelnetworks.com
>Subject: RE: Optical Link Interface
>
>
>Hi Osama,
>
> > Even though I don't think reviving CR-LDP and RSVP-TE history will get
>us
> > anywhere
>
>"Those who forget (ignore) history are doomed to repeat it."
>
>Yes, it makes for painful recollections. We're living with the
>consequences now, though, and I don't want to again.
>
> > the existence of two protocols here have proven to be useful.
>
>That's not what I'm hearing, either from customers, or from the
>WG (admittedly, the sample is small).
>
>Listen carefully: I don't want LMP-WDM and NTIP moving forward.
>Just NTIP (or NTIP and LMP) is OKAY if that is what the WG
>consensus is. LMP-WDM and LMP works too.
>
>So: you've got the WG chairs (scarred and grumpy), the ADs
>and TA (speak up if I'm misrepresenting you), and customers
>saying, Pick one protocol and move forward. Let's do that.
>And, please, as Vijay says, let's resolve this already.
>
>Kireeti.