Re: draft-bellato-ccamp-g709-framework-01.txt

[Maarten Vissers <mvissers@lucent.com>]

Eric,

"Mannie, Eric" wrote:
> 
> Hello Maarten,
> 
> > I had a look at draft-bellato-ccamp-g709-framework-01.txt and must
> conclude that
> >this document redescribes G.709.
> 
> > As such we should not progress draft-bellato-ccamp-g709-framework-01.txt.
> 
> This draft started some time ago (and version 01 is not published yet). I
> saw private e-mail exchanges between the co-authors in which you are
> involved. Do I have to understand that there are new stuffs that you don't
> like ? Did the scope of the draft changed ?

As I indicated in my follow up email I should have referred to the generic
"G.709 Framework" item, rather than the latest (unpublished) draft.

> 
> Could you tell us why you are co-author of this draft ?

I don't know. My name was put onto the document, most likely as I had commented
on it before. I don't know what the rules are in the IETF to be co-author. I was
told that as co-author you can influence a document as you will be part of a
closed editor's group who prepares the next draft. As such I hadn't taken any
action to get my name removed, despite I did not agree with e.g. proposed
extensions to G.709. I.e. similar situation exists with respect to the sonet-sdh
document, where I have never agreed with the SUKLM numbering or AUG-X issues.

> 
> And why such a statement now ?

Driven by the same things as Juergen described in his email this afternoon;
i.e. the new I-Ds that came out last week, my question to ccamp, Randy's
answer, my recognition of the wider implication of that answer, and then the
normal drive for action (don't wait; learned something new, then share it).
Choice of words on Friday's is not always the best (try to do too many things
before the weekend kind of syndrome).

> 
> >Reading this document and other contributions redescribing aspects of
> SDH/SONET
> >caused the following titles to appear in to my mind :-)
> >       "OTN for dummies" or "OTN explained" by the IETF
> >       "SDH/SONET for dummies" or "SDH/SONET explained" by the IETF
> 
> I'll try to interpret these previous sentences in a non negative way for all
> the people involved in SONET, SDH and OTN at the IETF (and I am not the guy
> that was the most surprised - I am used to it now :-). 

Thanks. 

Concerning the titles, I tried to be very careful stating that they appeared in
MY mind when I looked at the recent I-Ds. I.e. I tried to stay away from
generalizing.
Underlying this all is my understanding/assumption that it is not within the
scope of IETF to write documents explaining other standards.

> Quoting a guy called Maarten Vissers:
> 
> "I had hoped that the time in which IETF characters are looking for
> confrontations with ITU-T characters was left behind."

I wasn't looking for confrontation when I wrote the email... just a follow up of
a statement/direction I consider to come from a top IETF person.

Regards,

Maarten

> 
> I hope that the character that some of us are playing are not coming from
> popular books. This issue reminds me a novel of Stevenson published in 1886:
> "The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mister Hide".
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Eric
> 
> Eric Mannie
> 
> (or Dr. Lanyon should I say :-)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maarten Vissers [mailto:mvissers@lucent.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 11:26 AM
> To: ccamp; q11/15; t1x1.5
> Subject: draft-bellato-ccamp-g709-framework-01.txt
> 
> All,
> 
> I had a look at draft-bellato-ccamp-g709-framework-01.txt and must conclude
> that
> this document redescribes G.709.
> 
> Reading this document and other contributions redescribing aspects of
> SDH/SONET
> caused the following titles to appear in to my mind :-)
>         "OTN for dummies" or "OTN explained" by the IETF
>         "SDH/SONET for dummies" or "SDH/SONET explained" by the IETF
> 
> As indicated earlier this week, IETF should not redescribe SDH/SONET or OTN.
> ITU-T has a complete set of specifications, which are available to anybody.
> 
> Those who contribute to the GMPLS work related to the OTN should base their
> work
> on the ITU-T OTN specifications. Necessary references from the GMPLS OTN
> specifications are to be made to the ITU-T OTN recommendations and not to
> any
> interpretation of those recommendations.
> 
> FYI, the list of OTN related recommendations is:
> 
> G.872 (version 2)
> G.709 + G.709 ammendment 1
> G.7041
> G.7042
> G.798
> G.806
> G.7710
> G.874
> G.874.1
> G.7712
> G.8251
> G.959.1
> G.664
> 
> Furthermore work is ongoing on the following draft recommendations:
> G.optperf
> G.875
> G.gps
> G.otnprot
> M.24otn
> 
> As such we should not progress draft-bellato-ccamp-g709-framework-01.txt.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Maarten
begin:vcard 
n:Vissers;Maarten
tel;cell:+31 62 061 3945
tel;fax:+31 35 687 5976
tel;home:+31 35 526 5463
tel;work:+31 35 687 4270
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Optical Network Group;Lucent Technologies Nederland
version:2.1
email;internet:mvissers@lucent.com
title:Consulting Member of Technical Staff
adr;quoted-printable:;;Botterstraat 45=0D=0A=0D=0A;1271 XL Huizen;;;The Netherlands
fn:Maarten Vissers
end:vcard