Re: ASON reqts

[Stephen Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>]

John,
First, I think there is a big difference between 3 and 4 and what should
be done about it:
For 3, G.7713.2 is OK, RFC 3474 is broken, and we just need to fix RFC 3474
  by superceding with something aligned with G.7713.2.
For 4, G.7713.2 is broken (as is, by extension RFC 3474). Here we need to
  coordinate with ITU-T to fix both. It seems like a bad strategy to try
  to have IETF fly solo and develop a "better" solution to ITU-T requirements
  than what ITU-T did.

Back to why it is important to decide where we are going with this first:
I think that some who support this as a WG document are doing so because
they want to see the base protocol and the ASON extensions documented in
a common place, and NOT because they were intending to open the door to
changing the protocol now. If we can get agreement over why we are doing
this now, I think we can avoid a lot of arguments later.
Regards,
Steve

John Drake wrote:
> 
> Stephen,
> 
> If this I-D is progressed, it will be used as the basis for deciding between
> 2, 3, and 4, although I don't see any practical difference between 3 and 4.
> I haven't seen 5 expressed by anyone (at least in the context of this I-D).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Trowbridge [mailto:sjtrowbridge@lucent.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 6:49 AM
> > To: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS
> > Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: ASON reqts
> >
> >
> > All,
> > I have a growing sense of unease that we could be headed
> > for trouble here because, among those who seem to support that
> > this becomes a WG document, there seem to be (among those who
> > indicate a reason) a wide variety of different motivations about
> > WHY this should be a WG document and what the posters expect
> > will happen as a result.
> >
> > Perhaps more helpful than just a Yes/No preference, it would
> > be more helpful to characterize the reasons so that, if this
> > becomes a WG document, we know we have a consensus on why we
> > are doing this and what we are trying to accomplish.
> >
> > I think I have detected the following motivations from different
> > posts in the thread:
> >
> > 1. Those who don't want this to be a WG document (we are done with
> >    this version of the specifications, lets get some experience
> >    with them before considering any further change or evolution).
> >
> > 2. Those who think this should be a WG document so that ASON
> > extensions
> >    currently standardized in ITU-T will get standards track status in
> >    IETF (no intent to change the protocol, but document the superset
> >    in one place so that we don't get so many GMPLS implementations
> >    that don't support the ASON extensions).
> >
> > 3. Those who think there is nothing wrong with the ITU-T extensions to
> >    meet the ASON requirements, but believe that RFC 3474
> > didn't translate
> >    G.7713.2 properly and this draft is a first step to fixing
> > RFC 3474.
> >
> > 4. Those who think that even the ITU-T extensions don't meet the ASON
> >    requirements, so IETF should now take it over and do it
> > better starting
> >    with this draft.
> >
> > 5. Those who think that ITU-T didn't get the requirements right, so we
> >    need to look at everything from scratch.
> >
> > There may be other motivations which I haven't detected or
> > characterized,
> > but these seem to be the main camps.
> >
> > So I don't think it is enough to just count how many say it should be
> > a WG document. I think that those in camp #2 above might be
> > pretty upset
> > if the result of making this a WG document turns out to be a
> > rototilling
> > of the protocol driven by those in camps #4 and #5. We will
> > have a much
> > smoother time if we agree on why we are doing this and what
> > we are trying
> > to accomplish as a result.
> >
> > Once we settle on which of 1-5 we are trying to accomplish:
> > - If it is 1, 2, or 3, we can handle in IETF.
> > - If it is 4 or 5, we had better send a liaison to ITU-T.
> >
> > Please let me know if I missed any proposed purposes for this draft.
> > Otherwise, for those of you who support this being a WG draft, I think
> > it might be helpful if you would indicate which of (2-5) characterizes
> > why you support this so we can make sure we are on the same page as to
> > what we are trying to accomplish.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Steve
> >