RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02

[neil.2.harrison@bt.com]

Thanks Steve....nice to hear a voice of sanity.

Just FYI.....many people from various IETF lists have privately asked me for
copies of Y.1711 (and/or Y.1710 - requirements/principles) and I have have
passed them on.  Also SG13 have sent formal liaisons to IETF/ATMF/MPLSF on
these already.  If anyone else wants a copy until such time they become
publically available please ask me and I'll do my best to post on.....but be
prepared for a little delay as I'll be travelling from tomorrow for a week
or so.

As an aside.....this ITU/IETF bickering is really helping nobody here.  Each
side can learn from the other.  I get really sad when I see destructive
comments about the G.805 layering/partitioning arch
stuff......why?....because its how we all actually work even if some of us
don't actually consciously recognise it.  G.805 just gives it a formal
base....and its a damn sight more useful than the almost useless L1/2/3
classifications (which mean nothing) and the OSI model which gives the
illusion there is only *one* layer network (at L3, OSI sense)....absolute
bunkum.  G.805 matches reality.  Give it a shot.

regards, Neil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Trowbridge [mailto:sjtrowbridge@lucent.com]
> Sent: 28 February 2002 17:28
> To: Shahram Davari
> Cc: 'erosen@cisco.com'; 'Randy Bush'; Cuevas, Enrique G, ALASO;
> ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Brian Moore
> Subject: Re: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
> 
> 
> (snip)
> > Why? Simply because it is produced by ITU is not a logical 
> way to dismiss it. 
> > Do you think the ITU architecture is wrong and if so why? 
> and what architecture
> > (if any!) do you suggest that the requirements and 
> solutions should fit in to?
> ITU and IETF do have a formal cooperation agreement. This 
> does not mean that
> either organization needs to do what the other says, but in 
> the event IETF were
> to choose to diverge, it would at least be polite to send a 
> communication to
> the relevante ITU-T study group (in this case, SG13) to 
> indicate why. ITU-T
> input should at least be given serious consideration.
> 
> > As has been stated these are to a
> > large extent documented in the (sadly too new to get at for 
> free) documents
> > Y.1711/Y.1710 but were in the now expired though surely google-able
> > draft-harrison... 
> My understanding is that these should be made available to 
> IETF through a
> public ftp site in the next few days. Material from Study 
> Group 15 has been
> shared in this way in the past. A similar mechanism is now 
> being set up for
> Study Group 13.
> 
> Regards,
> Steve Trowbridge
>