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.
[John Drake]The fact that you perceive yourself to be a key player shouldn't a priori give your opinion any additional weight
[Jamoussi, Bilel ] I am speaking of a market reality and stating facts not perceptions. My point is clear, IETF does not use company affiliations and I am not advocating more or less weight.. 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
[John Drake]What is the basis for this assertion? When we started the LMP-WDM work we asked you to work on it with us
and you refused, citing lack of need.
[Jamoussi, Bilel ] This is simply not true.2. 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.
[John Drake]This is an assertion. Some of the co-authors of the LMP WDM draft work for WDM vendors and they're happy with
the peer relationship between the two devices
[Jamoussi, Bilel ] This is an assertion ;-)
Bilel.
-----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.