Re: IETF 55 - CCAMP Minutes

[Stephen Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>]

Kireeti,
> c) the IETF has every right to "bring up" topics that other forums may
>         or may not already have discussed, lengthily or otherwise,
>         especially when it concerns protocols that the IETF developed.

As I recall the OIF discussion, vendors were split over the proposal,
and operators indicated strongly that their needs were better addressed by
the ongoing UNI and NNI work.

Certainly it would make sense for IETF to take up a proposal that another
standards body had rejected IF they are trying to address a different market
or application for which this proposal might be an appropriate solution.

When I suggested that a requirements document might be the correct first
step here during the meeting, one of the authors described this as a stalling
tactic. What I had in mind was to use this as a time saving tactic:

If there is a market or application that is of interest to IETF that was not
of interest to OIF, then it should be no trouble to identify that market and
to write down the REQUIREMENTS for that market that are not met by base GMPLS
or the OIF solutions.

Asking for these requirements to be written down seems to be a good way, not only
to focus the work, but to eliminate the other possibility: if the market is the
SAME one considered by OIF with no new requirements, then perhaps the authors
are just forum shopping, trying to find a place where this proposal gets a more
welcome reception than it did at OIF. If this is the case, lets not waste our time
rehashing the same old arguments (with almost exactly the same participants).
Regards,
Steve