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

["Jones, Mark L [GMG]" <Mark.Jones@mail.sprint.com>]

Curtis and Gert,

I would guess that many of us who participate mostly at the ITU-T would
support this position if it had not already proven to fail.  Many of those
at the ITU-T do understand the reasons for the IETF consensus, but they do
not believe it justifies adoption of the IETF solution for the ITU-T set of
requirements.  So, what do we do?

My guess is that the differences in scopes and points of view will always
lead to differences in opinion on what and how things should be done.  Where
a single application is being addressed, I had hoped that we could agree
between the two organizations, who should be the lead.  For most IP and IP
based protocols and applications, I think most see the IETF as the lead.
However, where L0/L1 applications are concerned, that is not the case.

The interest in refining procedures is simply a way of addressing the issue,
or maintaining a reasonable working relationship between the two groups.  I
hope your conversations at the upcoming IETF meeting help us resolve this
issue.

Regards,

Mark Loyd Jones
Optical Transport and Networking
Sprint - Wireline Technology Development
913-794-2139
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@fictitious.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 10:41 AM
To: Gert Grammel
Cc: curtis@fictitious.org; Jones, Mark L [GMG]; ccamp@ops.ietf.org;
dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com; gash@att.com; mpls@UU.NET
Subject: Re: {Possible Spam} Re: I-D
ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt 


[ 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