-----Original Message-----
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:38 AM
To: Stephen Trowbridge
Cc: Yangguang Xu; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: GMPLS in overlay mode
Hi Steve,
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Stephen Trowbridge wrote:
> > 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.
That's useful information. However, it does not mean that we shouldn't
discuss it in the IETF; nor on the other hand does it mean that we (the
IETF/CCAMP WG) cannot learn from the OIF experience.
> 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.
Let me re-iterate: the OIF is *not* a standards body.
Furthermore, if I understood the authors correctly, there *are* addressing
a different application.
> 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:
The "overlay" document essentially describes a *mode* of using GMPLS.
There are no major extensions; there are a few procedural changes. It
is basically a clarification document that says that GMPLS (which many
just assume can only be used in "peer" mode) can in fact be used in
an overlay context.
A call for consensus to make this a WG document should indicate whether
folks think this is useful or not.
Kireeti.