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

[Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]

zhi,

let's be very clear here, intent was to gather feedback
from the ccamp community during the yokohama meeting, i
have to say that the achieved consensus (as previously
explained was more than satisfactory imho) when you have
decided to go on the info track it has been based on the
expectation to get code points on time, now that you have
received them, i more than strongly suggest that you put 
this document over the table and that we discuss it... at 
the end i've got the impression that you don't want to 
discuss it at all anymore... is there something to hide 
here ?

ps: some of the critical oif players you refer in your
below e-mail are seriously questioning what has been done
over time ... and from this perspective only implementation
will decide about the relevance of these extensions

thanks,
- dimitri.

Zhi-Wei Lin wrote:
> 
> Hi Kireeti,
> 
> Just responding to your point (e) below. As someone pointed out in some
> previous email exchanges (seems like an age ago), when I submitted my I-D
> around the June timeframe, the IETF CCAMP WG were not particularly
> interested. However, I did work with and gotten quite good feedback
> privately. Among the folks were Adrian, Jerry, Dimitrios, Dimitri, Nick,
> Greg, Lyndon, Bala, Yangguang. Of course not everyone agreed with some of
> the particular solution but I don't think anyone questioned that there were
> technical issues with it...
> 
> And also as someone pointed out, many of the critical players in the GMPLS
> arena were also players in the OIF. I think the root cause is maybe not the
> liaison process but the intent of people working in the topic area? Just a
> guess...
> 
> Thanks
> Zhi
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET]On Behalf Of Kireeti
> > Kompella
> > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 5:26 PM
> > To: Stephen Trowbridge
> > Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; mpls@UU.NET
> > Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
> >
> >
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Stephen Trowbridge wrote:
> >
> > > There is no doubt that liaisons CURRENTLY have no more wieght than
> > > individual IDs
> >
> > This might be a fundamental difference between the IETF and
> > other SDOs,
> > the ITU in particular.  However, that still doesn't mean that this
> > policy of the IETF's is wrong.  I happen to think that taking
> > everything
> > at its own merit rather than considering where it came from
> > is the most
> > democratic, equal opportunity means of handling it -- but that's a
> > personal philosophy, not necessarily echoed by the IETF.
> >
> > That said, if liaisons truly have lower priority than individual IDs,
> > it is more the vehicle (emails, notes posted to the liaison web page,
> > etc.) than the source or the content.  One the advice of a
> > wise person,
> > I have started (belatedly) posting to the CCAMP list that
> > such liaisons
> > exist.  Note that I don't need to do that for IDs -- the
> > authors generally
> > do that, and there is a mailing list that one can subscribe for this.
> >
> > > But it is my opinion that the lack of a liaison process is really
> > > the ROOT CAUSE of difficulties like what we saw in January.
> >
> > If we really do a root cause analysis, it comes down to this (IMO):
> > a) CCAMP gets a liaison statement stating that certain changes are
> >    requested in the GMPLS specs (doesn't get posted to the
> > list, though).
> > b) CCAMP doesn't officially respond (mechanisms not in place).
> > c) CCAMP WG gets requirements via Zhi's and Osama's drafts.
> > d) CCAMP mailing list hosts discussions about whether these
> > requirements
> >    make sense in the IETF context.
> > e) In the interest of quick allocation of code points, these two docs
> >    are made Informational, and go through without much review.
> > f) Various folks (CCAMP, RSVP, MPLS, ...) are very concerned about the
> >    changes made to RSVP and CR-LDP.
> >
> > (The intent here is not to point fingers, although I've
> > already claimed
> > my share of the blame.)
> >
> > I see (b) and (e) as the most serious breakdowns in the process.  The
> > GMPLS change doc should help alleviate (e), and hopefully help (a) as
> > well.  And if we get started on the liaison doc, that should help (b).
> >
> > Or we could keep talking :-)
> >
> > Kireeti.

-- 
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