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

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

This is pretty much what Bala said a while back.  I think it is a leap of
faith to go from the minutes say:




: to your interppreation of what the minutes say

-----Original Message-----
From: Varma, Eve L (Eve) [mailto:evarma@lucent.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 12:34 PM
To: John Drake; 'Stephen Trowbridge'
Cc: 'Lazer, Monica A, ALASO'; Kireeti Kompella; Khuzema Pithewan;
ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: WG Consensus Call: draft-swallow-gmpls-overlay-00.txt


Hi John,

In fact, it was agreed within the OIF that the p-UNI/ILSI would not
become a separate interface specification.  If you refer to the OIF minutes
in
OIF2002.269.4, you will see the statement:

"It was agreed that further work related to Private-UNI/ILSI would take
place under the auspices of UNI 2.0, and would not be a separate interface
specification.  In particular, that services of interest be extracted from
oif2002.540 and submitted as UNI 2.0 candidates (see candidate #19)."  

As no subsequent contributions related to possible additional services were
submitted, candidate #19 was ultimately dropped.

Thus it is accurate to state that p-UNI/ILSI was not accepted (was rejected)
as a separate interface specification.

Best regards,
Eve

-----Original Message-----
From: John Drake [mailto:jdrake@calient.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:10 PM
To: 'Stephen Trowbridge'
Cc: 'Lazer, Monica A, ALASO'; Kireeti Kompella; Khuzema Pithewan;
ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: WG Consensus Call: draft-swallow-gmpls-overlay-00.txt


I just noticed in this:  "Interface B (P-UNI/ILSI rejected by OIF,
draft-swallow-gmpls-overlay-00.txt
currently under consideration for WG status by ccamp)" the sly phrase
characterization "rejected by OIF".

In point of fact, it was not rejected by the OIF.  This is the type of
misinformation that I think Kireeti was talking about in an earlier e-mail.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Trowbridge [mailto:sjtrowbridge@lucent.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 11:08 AM
To: John Drake
Cc: 'Lazer, Monica A, ALASO'; Kireeti Kompella; Khuzema Pithewan;
ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: WG Consensus Call: draft-swallow-gmpls-overlay-00.txt


John,
I think that the diversity of opinions indicates a couple of issues
that are still open for debate.

There are two proposed interfaces:
Interface A (using my terminology from the last email): OIF-UNI
Interface B (P-UNI/ILSI rejected by OIF, draft-swallow-gmpls-overlay-00.txt
  currently under consideration for WG status by ccamp)

I think there are carriers who want interface A who fear that standardizing
interface B reduces their chance of getting A. Some work needs to go into
alleviating that fear. One way is to get rid of interface B. Another might
be to make it clear that vendors still intend to provide interface A
instead of using interface B as a way to shortcut things and avoid giving
(certain) carriers what they really want. For example, just because
Microsoft sells an Office-XP "Home" edition doesn't prevent corporate
users who really want it from buying Office-XP "Professional".

Another issue: are A and B different enough to be worth having two
standardized
interfaces? Are the shortcuts in B worth introducing interworking issues
(will these ever be in the same network, e.g., at the enterprise/operator
boundary?) and having to deal with those in the standards. Analyzing this
is probably tricky with documents written in different styles produced by
different organizations. Maybe we need to bring interface A (the OIF-UNI
functionality) in as an Internet Draft so they can be looked at side by
side.

Regards,
Steve

John Drake wrote:
> 
> Stephen,
> 
> I couldn't help but notice that you snipped the part of my e-mail
discussing
> this topic, to wit:
> 
> "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)."
> 
> The four individuals I explicitly mentioned work for carriers and the
> e-mails I mentioned
> all speak in favor of making the the draft a working group draft.  Also, a
> representative
> from another carrier is a co-author.  And lest we forget, two of the
> individuals work for
> the same carrier that Monica works for.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Trowbridge [mailto:sjtrowbridge@lucent.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 9:41 AM
> To: John Drake
> Cc: 'Lazer, Monica A, ALASO'; Kireeti Kompella; Khuzema Pithewan;
> ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: WG Consensus Call: draft-swallow-gmpls-overlay-00.txt
> 
> John,
> 
> John Drake wrote:
> (snipped)
> > 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.
> 
> Let's see, a carrier wants interface A.
> 
> A vendor proposes to standardize another interface B which is similar, but
> doesn't quite solve all the same problems as A, and tells the carrier "If
> you don't like B you don't have to use it".
> 
> It seems to me that the carrier concern is that if interface A and
interface
> B are both standardized, and if (the/some) carrier(s) want interface A and
> (many/most) vendors choose to build only interface B, then the carriers
> don't get what they want.
> 
> This fear is what makes people reluctant to progress work on an interface
> they don't feel is useful for them.
> 
> The idea of standards is surely to promote the deployment of interoperable
> implementations, but part of accomplishing this is to try to limit the
> number of "standardized" solutions to the same problem.
> I think the next debate would be what we really mean by "the same"
problem.
> Some arguments have appeared that this interface is directed at a
> different problem, so I have to ask whether it is different enough
> to justify standardizing a different solution.
> Regards,
> Steve