RE: WG Consensus Call: draft-swallow-gmpls-overlay-00.txt

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

Comments inline

-----Original Message-----
From: Lazer, Monica A, ALASO [mailto:mlazer@att.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 6:16 AM
To: Kireeti Kompella; Khuzema Pithewan
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: WG Consensus Call: draft-swallow-gmpls-overlay-00.txt


Snipped...


Regarding point b - true. But I would like to understand what is the
value for the whole industry in doing this, which brings me to point c.


JD:  If you're planning to assume the role of arbiter for the whole
industry, please review the e-mails all of who support accepting the
draft as a CCAMP WG document.  In particular I'd review the e-mails of
some of your peers:  Deborah Brungard (12/6), Gerry Ash (12/3) (both
of whom I think you know), as well as Mark Jones (12/2), and Jean-Louis
Le Roux (12/3).


While the application may not be identical, I believe that the
application addressed by this draft can easily supported by the existing
UNI 1.0.


JD:  Interesting.  I believe that Area 51 contains the remains of space
aliens.   


Snipped... 

From a carrier perspective, supporting a third UNI alternative will
bring additional concerns regarding interoperability and managing the
network.


JD:  No one is forcing you to supporting this interface, except perhaps
potential customers.  To paraphrase George Swallow's 12/3 e-mail, if you
don't think this interface is useful for you, please ignore it, but don't
assume that it is not useful for others. 


Snipped...

having a protocol that only works with one protocol, which is not widely
deployed, will make it difficult to operate.


JD:  This is simply not true.  Since we're dealing with an overlay model,
any control plane can be used inside the cloud.


UNI 1.0 allows transition to use of GMPLS-based protocols
without the assumption of overnight replacement of existing control
plane implementations, which is not even feasible for a large network.


JD:  You seem to be implicitly asserting that this is NOT the case with
this interface.  If this is in fact what you are asserting, then it is
simply not true.


Monica A. Lazer
Network Architecture and Reliability

908 234 8462
mlazer@att.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 5:04 AM
To: Khuzema Pithewan
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: WG Consensus Call: draft-swallow-gmpls-overlay-00.txt

> This draft addresses the overlay networks which UNI1.0 from OIF
addresses.
> shouldn't we have one document addressing one problem. In fact, UNI1.0
> addresses it in-depth, so why there is a need of another document
talking
> about overlay networks?

I guess you haven't really been following the CCAMP email, so I'll
repeat:
(a) the OIF UNI1.0 is *not* a standard;
(b) just because the OIF is discussing something doesn't preclude the
    IETF from discussing it;
(c) the problems addressed are not quite the same.

If having two documents in this space is an issue, please make your
concerns known to the OIF.

Kireeti.