RE: Optical Link Interface

["Mannie, Eric" <Eric.Mannie@ebone.com>]

Dear all,

>1. The stats are not that significant, since there was no "last call"
period announced in advance to gauge community interest.

Well, at least it shows some preferences for a specification based on an
existing protocol on which the IETF is working since a while and that was
accepted as a WG document.

From my point of view, I don't see any reason to replace a protocol by
another one if they have the same functionalities.

So,

LMP-WDM:  8  +  1 = 9.

Kind regards,

Eric

Eric Mannie
EBONE

-----Original Message-----
From: Bilel Jamoussi
To: 'Andre Fredette'; 'ccamp@ops.ietf.org'
Sent: 7/30/01 5:14 PM
Subject: RE: Optical Link Interface

Andre, 

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-LMP 

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.

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 mechanism 

Bilel. 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Andre Fredette [ mailto:fredette@photonex.com
<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: 1 

And 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
<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.