Re: GMPLS signaling documents updated per last calls

[George Newsome <gnewsome@lucent.com>]

Dimitri Papadimitriou wrote:
> 
> Maarten,
> 

........
> 
> The agreement "we have a satisfactory solution but not the one proposed
> by Maarten/Stephen/etc." so this discussion for me is closed ... but i
> think that some people would like to see THEIR OWN solution into the
> document the reason is clear for me introduce their own view on the
> protocol architecture for distributed control plane restricting us to
> use the complexities they have introduced in their own model... sorry
> but this was not the aim of the last IETF meeting discussion.
> 

This is almost funny. The whole debate is about getting rid of unnessary
and restrictive complexity in your current solution.

.........
> >
> > It is not only a matter of the signal type field in the draft, it is also a
> > matter of how the network is monitored/operated. A SONET signal is not
> > always 100% compatible with an SDH signal. It depends on the profile used in
> > SDH and SONET. For sure there are different profiles for SONET and SDH (e.g.
> > differences in overhead: SS bit, J0, S1, J1, B3, G1, etc). We understood
> > that there is a join effort between T1 and ITU to reduce these differences,
> > but you cannot assume that everybody will adapt to/implement the latest
> > (draft) version of the transport plane standards.
> 
> I would like also to remember here that our target is to achieve an
> efficient and interoperable running code, we don't target state of

Given your current solution, I can only wish you well

> the art transmission system modelling "theory" since in practice state
> of the art models are rarely applicable in the real world.

Good models are taken from the real world - the one that some of us have
worked with for many years. Its hard to see how such models don't apply.
(Remember the new economy - the old models didn't apply)

> 
> ... these remarks translates the problem of people working only from
> the "theoretical" viewpoint without any pragmatic view on the reality.
> 

Well Dimitri, if you can't deal with Maarten's arguments, at least you
can try and call him names.

........
> 
> For all, if you take a look at the complexity introduced by this model,
> call/discovery then connection i more than 100% sure that we are on the
> right track here BY KEEPING THINGS SIMPLE.
> 

Again, the best I can do is wish you well with your "simple" model

Have a Merry Xmas

Regards

	George