RE: Communication in response to the OIF

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Hi Jerry,

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS wrote:

> Kireeti,
>
> I would not characterize the interactions between ITU-T and IETF as
> a "cooperative effort" at this point.  IMO "adversarial effort"
> would be more accurate, but "joint effort" might be more PC.

Well, there are two fronts (yes, now it sounds like a battle :-)):
a) signaling, and
b) routing.

On the signaling front, what you say is the case, at present.
However, with routing, the IETF and ITU-T have gotten off to a better
start, and hopefully we'll come up with a solution agreeable to all,
at least within the bounds of "rough consensus".

The communication with the OIF focussed on routing, hence the term
"cooperative effort".

> I don't see that much cooperation between ITU-T and IETF quite yet
> on GMPLS/ASON.  The GMPLS/ASON signaling effort is still suffering
> from deep differences in views on G.7713.2 versus
> http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-rsvp-te-ason-01.txt.
> I believe that the signaling piece of the OIF interoperability demo
> is based on G.7713.2.  The GMPLS/ASON routing effort also appears to
> have some significant differences in views at this point, stemming
> in part from differences arising out of G.7715.1 IMO.
>
> Hopefully this will all work out, but the tone at IETF-59 didn't
> give me a lot of hope that this "cooperative effort" is going happen
> any time soon.

I (eternal optimist) hope that routing will work out.  Where we go
with signaling is unfortunately still unclear.

Kireeti.
-------