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

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]

john,

i worry about the fundamental reasons behind "I'm 
assuming that in your worldview that the Yokohama 
CCAMP meeting never happened?" which is for me 
a very sensible and relevant point

because it means imho that independently of the 
real quality and level of details of the (future)
liaison process, clearly there are some "centrifuge" 
forces that tends to discourage a good collaboration 
(meaning is there somewhere reasons and interest 
in not making this happening - why ?), consensus
made during this yokohama meeting was unformal and
had been overridden thus why the formal one would
work better and preclude such situations to happen
once again ? since at the end of the day people 
behind the process make the decision (and since 
we speak about the same group of people...)

in a sense the yokohama meeting is not just about it
went to an info track ... it is to know *which* were
the technical and non-technical reasons for the i-d
editors in deciding to go the info track and not 
working in the scope of the working group ? 

as long as this question is not solved i really
worry about the real intent behind the current 
thread.

thanks,
- dimitri.

John Drake wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> 

-- 
Papadimitriou Dimitri 
E-mail : dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be 
Private: http://www.rc.bel.alcatel.be/~papadimd/index.html
E-mail : dpapadimitriou@psg.com
Public : http://psg.com/~dpapadimitriou/
Address: Fr. Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone  : +32 3 240-8491