Re: Communication in response to the OIF

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Hi Fred,

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Fred Stringer wrote:

> A comment from the lurking gallery if I may.
> You are probably representing the committee opinion here, but there seems
> to be a conflict in the  message.
> You stated that since the work was emphasized by Mr. Ong as "experimental"
> alleviated some concerns - but then there is the concern over the SuperComm
> testing.
> I don't think INTEROPERABILITY demonstration in public forum is purely
> experimental.
> I don't see why the concerns are alleviated. You don't want to clobber
> Lyndon but I think the concern is justified. The industry has enough
> problems without fracturing the protocols it depends upon.

Thanks for your comments.  I agree that there is a tension between
"experimental" and "interoperability".  The value of an interop event
that uses experimental (and hence subject to change) code points and
extensions is debatable, but the OIF has been doing these events for a
long time now.  I doubt they will stop calling them interop events;
hopefully, they will at least state that they are experiments.

As for concerns being alleviated, perhaps when the questions that were
listed are answered, we'll have a better grasp of the seriousness of
this situation.

> The request of not using OSPF, OSPF-TE and GMPLS in the demo has teeth and
> is good.

Okay, good.

> Of all the comments you were probably expecting I'm sure this is not one of
> them. But the situation did move me to come a little out of my lurking status.

With the CCAMP WG, I don't expect ... I send my mails and duck :-)

Kireeti.
-------