On the OIF contacts:
Jim Jones' email address is: Jim.D.Jones@alcatel.com, he is the OIF Architecture/Signaling WG chair
John McDonough's email address is: jmcdonou@cisco.com,he is the Vice-President of the OIF
Steve Joiner's email address is: steve.joiner@bookham.com
On point b) below, the OIF is a Rec. A5 qualified organization with the ITU-T and has liaised work many times with SG15 of the ITU-T. In several meetings in 2002, the OIF voted to adopt ASON architecture and requirements (including G.7715 on routing) for its Implementation Agreements to comply with. It should not alarm CCAMP that the OIF also has a cooperative relationship with ITU-T with regard to ASON routing. Hence I suggest removing point b).
-----Original Message-----
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:kireeti@juniper.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 09:13
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Alex Zinin; Bill Fenner
Subject: Communication in response to the OIF
Hi All,
Here's a first draft of a reply to the OIF. Please comment to the list by Monday, March 15 2004.
If someone has email addresses for Steve Joiner, Jim Jones and John McDonough (and titles for the last two), that would be very helpful.
Thanks,
Kireeti.
--------
<Date>
From: Kireeti Kompella & Adrian Farrel, IETF CCAMP Working Group Chairs
To: Mr. Steve Joiner, OIF Technical Committee Chair
Cc: Jim Jones,
Cc: John McDonough,
Cc: Alex Zinin, IETF Routing Area Director
Cc: Bill Fenner, IETF Routing Area Director
Dear Steve,
Thank you for your communication regarding the current status of OIF signaling and routing work, and the associated documentation. This communication is in response. As there is no formal liaison relationship yet between the IETF and the OIF, this communication is not treated as a liaison; hopefully, this situation will be rectified soon.
Thank you too for allowing Mr. Lyndon Ong to present a synopsis of the work going on at the OIF with regard to Intra-carrier E-NNI routing. It was both useful and enlightening.
However, both of these gave us cause for alarm, on two fronts:
a) The development of new or modified code points and procedures
in OSPF without expert review from the OSPF WG in the IETF
contravenes IETF procedure, especially as the IETF pays special
attention to changes in protocols in the Routing Area, such as
OSPF.
b) The development of routing for optical networks without expert
review from the CCAMP WG is also a source of concern, especially
in the light of a cooperative effort between the ITU-T and the
IETF in exactly this area.
Mr. Ong's emphasis that this work was experimental and purely for the purpose of testing alleviated some of our concerns. It would be very helpful to hear this officially from the OIF; furthermore, in the interests of openness and full disclosure, we would strongly urge the modification of a paragraph in the Introduction of the draft routing document OIF2003.259 as follows:
"The base protocol as defined by this document is OSPF with
extensions for Traffic Engineering and GMPLS. This document
proposes to use GMPLS-OSPF to operate at each hierarchical
level, with multiple such levels stacking up to form the
routing hierarchy. Extensions have been defined in the forms
of (sub-) TLVs to accommodate the requirements as defined in the
G.8080, G.7715, and G.7715.1. Note that these extensions as
currently specified are purely for the purpose of experimentation
and testing; in particular, they have not yet been reviewed by
the OSPF and CCAMP Working Groups in the IETF. Furthermore they
use experimental codepoints, and as such must not be used in
production deployments."
Mr. Ong also brought to our attention that the OIF will be holding an interoperability demonstration of this specification at the SuperComm in June 2004. Due to the preliminary nature of this specification, the IETF would strongly recommend that the words OSPF, OSPF-TE and GMPLS not be used in the context of this demonstration, nor that there be any implication that this work has been reviewed or sanctioned by the IETF.
It would be helpful in determining the future relationship between the IETF and the OIF to understand how the OIF intends to progress this document.
o Is this intended to become an Implementation Agreement in
something close to its current form?
o Does the OIF intend to submit this as a submission in the ITU-T
SG15 to become a Recommendation?
o Does the OIF intend to submit this document as an Internet Draft
to become an IETF RFC?
Thank you for your attention in this matter, and for initiating this dialogue. We hope that this develops into a fruitful relationship. To that end, we enclose a product of the joint work between the ITU-T and the IETF on Routing Requirements for ASON. This is a work in progress, and we solicit your comments:
- to identify any requirements that the OIF has over and above those
requirements established by the ITU-T ASON model
- to ensure that the solution developed within the IETF addresses
the requirements of both the ITU-T and OIF.
We hope that your feedback will signal the beginning of an active cooperation between the IETF and the OIF.
Sincerely,
<etc.>
<attachment: current version of GMPLS ASON Routing Requirements doc>