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

[Lyndon Ong <lyndon_ong@yahoo.com>]

Hi Folks,

Some emails I sent did not get through, so...

First:

It seems to me that the authors did all that they
could to bring the extension proposals to the 
attention of the CCAMP group, including submitting
drafts, going to meetings, making presentations, etc.

If these proposals were not fully reviewed by people,
then it was probably because CCAMP has such a busy
agenda that people did not have time.

Requiring that all protocol extensions to RSVP-TE be
defined in CCAMP would only contribute to the overload
in the CCAMP group.

Second:

These extensions are for the use of RSVP in Transport
Networks (i.e., SDH).  They are not intended for the
use of RSVP on IP Networks, at least not at the IP
level.

As such I fail to see the reason to restrict protocol
extension work to the IETF, as the IETF has its focus
on IP networks (or MPLS, which is tightly coupled with
IP).  Generalized MPLS can be applied
to environments or applications that may have no 
relationship to IP at all.

Third:

These extensions are for use in UNI and E-NNI 
interfaces.  My impression is that until very 
recently, CCAMP did not have such interfaces on
its agenda, in fact there was disagreement on 
whether such interfaces should be defined.  However,
they have been part of the ASON architecture from
the start.

If work is not on the agenda of the appropriate IETF
WG, or goes against the model that the WG is using,
then people who are interested can basically
(a) wait and hope that things change
(b) do the work somewhere else, using as much
    knowledge of the protocols as is available

The risk then becomes theirs that people will accept
the work and the IETF will cooperate with codepoint
assignment.  

Cheers,

Lyndon Ong

BTW, there seem to be two separate threads concerning
this issue...


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com