RE: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational

[Bob Natale <Bob.Natale@AppliedSNMP.com>]

At 1/23/2003:11:13 AM, Ong, Lyndon wrote:

Hi all,

[I hope no one minds that I've trimmed the numerous individual
recipient names from the address headers on this thread! :-]

FWIW, I'd like to "second" the comments made by Lyndon below,
in all three parts of his message.

Furthermore, I'd like to add that the IETF leadership should
proceed along the lines of developing more positive and proactive
procedural relationships (quantitatively and qualitatively) with
related external SDOs, especially the OIF and ITU-T in the GMPLS
domain, for the purpose of maximizing overall solution quality
(i.e., how well our protocols play in the real world).  The bottom
line is that we need the benefit of the large-carrier requirements
gathering and specification tasks performed well by the ITU-T and
we can generally leverage the interworking applications analysis
and specification tasks being spearheaded by the OIF.  True, the
IETF does those same tasks at times, sometimes to a large degree
and sometimes to a very limited degree, sometimes successfully
and sometimes not.  Ideally, things will progress (over time) to
the point where formal work plans (divisions of labor) among the
IETF and relevant SDOs can be worked into WG charters and milestones.
There is really no sense in pretending that we can do otherwise
(or need to do so), in the general case, any longer.  [These
comments were intended as much for the "problem-statement"
topic as for this specific thread.]

Cheers,

BobN
- - - - -
>Hi Folks,
>
>I can reaffirm Zhi's comment that call and connection separation 
>goes back to G.8080, an already approved ITU specification of
>the G.ASON architecture.
>
>I'm a bit puzzled by the argument that no one but IETF should be
>allowed to extend an IETF protocol - I would think that extensions
>are generally allowed if they don't cause a limitation on the available
>codepoints and are documented to allow people to use them.  Aren't some
>codepoint partitions designed for people to do this, without having to 
>force all extension work through a WG?
>
>Also, I would think that approving the drafts is just that,
>approving the drafts and their contents as Informational
>documents, it is not being asked that these become IETF Standards.
>  
>Cheers,
>
>Lyndon Ong