Re: Communication in response to the OIF

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Hi Steve,

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Stephen J Trowbridge wrote:

Let me skip to your questions:

> If we take this as a given, the next questions I would ask are:
> - Is it better for IETF to disavow any association with the OIF
> effort, with the result being that multiple "descendants" of the
> GMPLS protocols (whether OIF is allowed to use the "GMPLS" term or
> not) compete with each other in the market; or would it be better to
> try to constructively engage with OIF to try to limit the
> proliferation of solutions and to bring the OIF solution in line
> with IETF principles?

It's really too early to answer this: we (CCAMP and OSPF WGs) haven't
looked at the OIF solution in detail yet.  However, at this point, the
IETF should disavow any endorsement of the OIF "OSPF" solution.  In
the light of the current work in the IETF, perhaps this is the right
answer even in the future.

If there are multiple "descendant" solutions, so be it.  The IETF
clearly owns OSPF and RSVP-TE, and any change MUST be validated by the
IETF.  I remember the innumerable debates where the ITU-T demanded
that the IETF *not* change SDH/G.709/..., and the IETF complied.  We
could have done otherwise, and created "descendants" of SDH, but as a
responsible SDO, we did not.  Let's see how the OIF proceeds before we
make judgments on its level of responsibility.

> - Is it better in the demo if IETF gets credit (and presumably good
> press) for the base protocols that were employed to make it happen,
> or should this look like OIF did this single-handedly? (I would
> guess that ITU-T will probably ask to get credit for the technology
> from their organization that was used to make the demo happen.
> Shouldn't we do the same?).

My opinion: we should let this look like the OIF did this
single-handedly (which they did, so anything else would be less than
honest).  And no, we should not do the same as your presumption of
the ITU-T's behaviour.  The issue is not who gets the credit, but
what happens to standards.

BTW, I am *very* sure that had the IETF modified SDH on its own and
organized a demo event for it, the ITU-T would not have rallied round
asking for credit; they (at least some factions therein) would have
raised a stink so vociferous it would take years to mend relations.
I have the scars to prove this.  So, let's not guess what SDOs would
do; let's just do the right thing ourselves.

Kireeti.
-------