Re: GMPLS Issue - Ethernet LSP Enc Type

[Lou Berger <lberger@movaz.com>]

At 09:19 AM 12/19/2001, George Newsome wrote:
>Lou Berger wrote:
> >
> > At 10:55 AM 12/18/2001, Ben Mack-Crane wrote:
> >
> > >The following issue raised 10/29/01 has not been addressed.
> >
> > I disagree.  We talked in person on this and I said the same thing on 
> the list.
> >
> > > > >1) There seems to be no difference as far as label allocation
> > > > >    is concerned between LSP Encoding Types Ethernet V2/DIX (2)
> > > > >    and Ethernet 802.3 (10).  One Encoding type would seem to
> > > > >    be sufficient.
> > > >
> > > > I agree, but some feel that this is needed to properly establish 
> LSPs in
> > > > systems what would terminate each type differently.
> > >
> > >I don't recall seeing anything on the list about the reasoning about this.
> > >can someone provide a pointer to where this was described?
> >
> > As I mentioned at the IETF, it was in private discussions.
> >
> > >Since LSP Encoding type is intended to describe the LSP for transit nodes
> > >and G-PID is intended to describe the LSP contents for the purpose of
> > >terminating it at the ends, information relevant only to termination
> > >should be conveyed in G-PID.
> > >
> > >Perhaps changing the name of this LSP Encoding Type to "Ethernet Phy"
> > >would make this clearer.
> >
> > The current wording is what was agreed to.
> >
>
>So if I understand this correctly, the wording that you allude to was
>agreed in private discusions?

To be precise, the wording was agreed to among all the authors.


>Without public discussion,

I think you'd agree that it's impractical to review in detail every change 
in a draft, prior to it being made, on the ccamp list.  What we have done 
is to reach agreement first among the co-authors and then to review the 
changes as part of issuing the new drafts.   The encoding type change was 
made *9* months ago.  There has been ample opportunity for review and comment.

>  it seems hard to claim that the issue has
>been resolved,

again, one person objecting != lack of "rough consensus".

Remember this item has not changed since March.

Unless the WG chair says otherwise, I see this issues as closed.

>and Ben is clearly not satisfied.

isn't there some quote about pleasing all the people all the time...

Lou

>Regards
>
>         George