RE: Communication in response to the OIF

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Hi Lyndon,

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Ong, Lyndon wrote:

> Hi Kireeti,
>
> The response looks generally good and I think it is good
> to open lines of communication between the groups.

Thanks, that's good to hear.

> A
> couple of things:
>
> -- I did not make the presentation as a formal representative
> of OIF, since there is no such person at this time.  It was
> made at the request of Adrian following our interaction at
> the ITU SG15 Rapporteur's meeting.  My only role in this is
> editor of the draft document at OIF (oif2003.259).

Understood.  Hopefully, in the process of formalizing the relation
between the IETF and the OIF, such a person will indeed be named.

> -- I believe there is no intention to publicize the OIF
> demonstration as in any way IETF-related; however it might
> be difficult to describe the routing without using the
> acronym "OSPF" :o)  I think OIF will be sensitive to the
> concerns that you identify.

Good news!

> BTW, I do think that Steve Trowbridge brings up a good point,
> which is that this work, while currently differing in the
> protocol details, does support the concept of GMPLS and the
> optical network control plane and in that sense should be
> seen as a positive thing.

I see that aspect, but it is incomplete.  As you well know, 7713.2 is
based on GMPLS RSVP-TE, but there are serious divergences as well.  I
would rather not see that happen again -- which is why I initiated the
ASON Routing Requirements Design Team, for example.  Now, the same
seems to be happening with the OIF :-(

Kireeti.
-------