[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Optical Link Interface
Bilel,
I might not have
worded my response exactly as John did (being the nice guy that I am), but I
agree with his answers.
In particular, you continue to talk about "unnecessary LMP baggage", or "complexity", but cannot describe
what it is.
Andre
At 01:24 PM 7/30/2001 -0700, John Drake
wrote:
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Bilel Jamoussi [mailto:jamoussi@nortelnetworks.com]
- Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 8:14 AM
- To: 'Andre Fredette'; 'ccamp@ops.ietf.org'
- 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.
- [John Drake]
- This is silly. Who else would you like to hear from?
- 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
- ------
- 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
- [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.
-
- (b) there is significant baggage to be carried from LMP down to the
WDM-LMP
- [John Drake]
- You've made this assertion inumerable times, and have been asked
inumerable times to enumerate what this
- excess baggage is. You have yet to do so.
- 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
- I suggest merging the two proposals as follows:
- - remove unnecessary LMP baggage
- [John Drake]
- Once again, this would be what?
- - adopt a client-server model
- [John Drake]
- No
- - allow for TCP as the transport
- [John Drake]
- No one but you and your co-authors think that this is either necessary or
desirable
-
- - clarify a simplified autodiscovery mechanism
- 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: 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]
- >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.