RE: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

Snipped...

> If SONET/SDH did not have what was required for this application,
> I assume that IETF should first come to T1X1/ITU-T for the needed
> extensions (much as ITU-T first came to IETF for the needed 
> extensions-remember?)

JD:  I'm assuming that in your worldview that the Yokohama CCAMP meeting
never happened?

> In contrast to the IP network, you have demarcation points User/Network
and
> between network operators for billing purposes, etc. This
> leads to some new requirements (e.g., call & connection separation)
> not met by the base protocol. Is it reasonable that we want to
> use the (G)MPLS protocols as a base and (inside or outside of
> IETF) define the minimum set of extensions to meet the requirements,
> or should we just have stuck with PNNI?

JD:  Is that a threat or a promise?  BTW, call & connection separation
doesn't exist in PNNI either, at least up to the point that I stopped
attending the ATM Forum.