The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
john, i worry about the fundamental reasons behind "I'm assuming that in your worldview that the Yokohama CCAMP meeting never happened?" which is for me a very sensible and relevant point because it means imho that independently of the real quality and level of details of the (future) liaison process, clearly there are some "centrifuge" forces that tends to discourage a good collaboration (meaning is there somewhere reasons and interest in not making this happening - why ?), consensus made during this yokohama meeting was unformal and had been overridden thus why the formal one would work better and preclude such situations to happen once again ? since at the end of the day people behind the process make the decision (and since we speak about the same group of people...) in a sense the yokohama meeting is not just about it went to an info track ... it is to know *which* were the technical and non-technical reasons for the i-d editors in deciding to go the info track and not working in the scope of the working group ? as long as this question is not solved i really worry about the real intent behind the current thread. thanks, - dimitri. John Drake wrote: > > Snipped... > > > If SONET/SDH did not have what was required for this application, > > I assume that IETF should first come to T1X1/ITU-T for the needed > > extensions (much as ITU-T first came to IETF for the needed > > extensions-remember?) > > JD: I'm assuming that in your worldview that the Yokohama CCAMP meeting > never happened? > > > In contrast to the IP network, you have demarcation points User/Network > and > > between network operators for billing purposes, etc. This > > leads to some new requirements (e.g., call & connection separation) > > not met by the base protocol. Is it reasonable that we want to > > use the (G)MPLS protocols as a base and (inside or outside of > > IETF) define the minimum set of extensions to meet the requirements, > > or should we just have stuck with PNNI? > > JD: Is that a threat or a promise? BTW, call & connection separation > doesn't exist in PNNI either, at least up to the point that I stopped > attending the ATM Forum. > > -- Papadimitriou Dimitri E-mail : dimitri.papadimitriou@alcatel.be Private: http://www.rc.bel.alcatel.be/~papadimd/index.html E-mail : dpapadimitriou@psg.com Public : http://psg.com/~dpapadimitriou/ Address: Fr. Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium Phone : +32 3 240-8491
|
|