Re: {Possible Spam} Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org>]

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss
  and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers.  if you wish to regularly
  post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
  message to <listname>-owner@ops.ietf.org and ask to have the alternate
  address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
  automatically accepted. ]

In message <3E6C83E6.F94C0CD0@alcatel.de>, Gert Grammel writes:
> Curtis,
> 
> you've wrote:
> 
>      It would be best if ITU members go off and waste their own time
>      pursuing ASON capabilities, just as the ATM Forum went off and wasted
>      their time on Q.2931 capability in UNI 3.x, 4.x, ...
> 
> and I don't agree with that. In my view it would be best if ITU-T members
> were able to understand and accept the ideas behind GMPLS and would
> provide valuable input to bring this work forward.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Gert


I absolutely agree with your statement above.

If there is consensus in the IETF that ASON should not be considered
as a set of requirements it would also be best if ITU-T members tried
to understand why this consensus was reached rather than try to
initiate procedural changes to allow it to be jammed through
regardless of whether is makes technical sense.

Perhaps I should have qualified my statement that if ITU-T members
continue to behave as they are now doing, then "It would be best if
ITU members go off and waste their own time ...".

Curtis