The MPLS WG Archive

[Stephen Trowbridge <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>]

Bala,
Excellent suggestion.
Steve

Bala Rajagopalan wrote:
> 
> Dimitri:
> 
> I don't recall the particular Yokohoma consensus
> you mention, although what you say could very well
> have happened. All I do remember is the total lack
> of interest in the audience about most of the drafts
> discussed.
> 
> My gripe is basically about the lack of a process in
> the IETF to rigorously and constructively evaluate
> on-going work outside. The liaisons
> obviously haven't worked very well, and the efforts
> by various people to bring in contributions on OIF
> and ASON work have been met with cynicism. This is
> the reason why there's a scramble at the last minute
> to "right" things.
> 
> Going forward, I hope the IETF makes it mandatory
> to have outside work examined in the relevant WGs with
> the same seriousness as regular WG items (or assign
> evaluation teams, like design teams). This would bring
> overall sanity and be beneficial for all groups.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Bala Rajagopalan
> Tellium, Inc.
> 2 Crescent Pl.
> Ocean Port, NJ 07757
> USA
> Ph: +1-732-923-4237
> Email: braja@tellium.com
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
> > [mailto:Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be]
> > Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 2:48 AM
> > To: Bala Rajagopalan
> > Cc: 'David Charlap'; Brian Hassink; Bob Braden; rsvp@ISI.EDU;
> > ccamp@ops.ietf.org; mpls@UU.NET; kireeti@juniper.net; iana@ISI.EDU;
> > sob@harvard.edu; mankin@psg.com; bwijnen@lucent.com
> > Subject: Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP
> >
> >
> > bala,
> >
> > your assertion "none of the IETF WGs (specifically, CCAMP)
> > have shown any interest in discussing the (informational)
> > drafts about ASON or OIF at any length." is not true
> > if you were really participating to the ccamp wg meeting
> > in yokohama you would have heard that the consensus was
> > (as requested by the chair) to send a ason functional
> > spec to the ccamp wg in order for the latter to define
> > the needed extensions - the proposal was to achieve
> > a first cut of these extensions in november '02 but
> > nothing happened everything goes to "informational"
> >
> > the reason why suddenly things gets tunneled until
> > reaching the current situation are still unclear for
> > me (one of the explanation i have is the clear rambo
> > competition played by the oif in backing up these
> > extensions instead of letting the corresponding
> > responsibility to the appropriate body i.e. the ietf)
> >
> > thanks,
> > - dimitri.
> >
> > Bala Rajagopalan wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > First, the IETF has been instrumental in putting
> > > IP/MPLS protoocols for use in the optical control plane.
> > > You can't now complain that RSVP is being indiscriminately
> > > used for purposes other than intended. To quote
> > > a cliche, you can't have the cake intact and modify it
> > > too.
> > >
> > > Second, none of the IETF WGs (specifically, CCAMP)
> > > have shown any interest in discussing the (informational)
> > > drafts about ASON or OIF at any length. Serious
> > > consideration by the WGs should lead to an examination
> > > of the solutions proposed and a liaison to ITU-T or OIF
> > > or whichever body about tweaks that are out
> > > of whack with the protocol architecture.
> > > Instead, what we usually end up with are WG
> > > Rambos who simply shoot down the entire model of
> > > ITU-T or OIF and move on.
> > >
> > > Finally, it's not so easy to steer away from RSVP altogether
> > > (even if it makes sense to do so)
> > > due to the installed code base of dominant vendors.
> > >
> > > In summary, there is a lot of pressure to use RSVP outside
> > > of IETF, and the IETF should systematically review the
> > > outside work to ensure technical sanity.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Bala Rajagopalan
> > > Tellium, Inc.
> > > 2 Crescent Pl.
> > > Ocean Port, NJ 07757
> > > USA
> > > Ph: +1-732-923-4237
> > > Email: braja@tellium.com
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: David Charlap [mailto:David.Charlap@marconi.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 11:15 AM
> > > > To: Brian Hassink
> > > > Cc: Bob Braden; rsvp@ISI.EDU; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; mpls@UU.NET;
> > > > kireeti@juniper.net; iana@ISI.EDU; sob@harvard.edu;
> > mankin@psg.com;
> > > > bwijnen@lucent.com
> > > > Subject: Re: IANA Considerations for RSVP
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Brian Hassink wrote:
> > > > > Didn't the IETF set the precedent by extending RSVP from an
> > > > IntServ protocol to an MPLS protocol?
> > > >
> > > > There's a big difference.  MPLS and IntServ are both IETF
> > > > groups.  (And
> > > > RSVP has/had its own working group anyway).  Also, most of
> > > > the key RSVP
> > > > people were involved in the development of RSVP-TE.
> > > >
> > > > This is very different from what I'm describing - where
> > > > people who have
> > > > no prior RSVP experience decide that they can start changing
> > > > it without
> > > > understing it, and without even notifying the IETF groups
> > > > that did all
> > > > of the development work.
> > > >
> > > > I'mnot saying that RSVP should never be extended.  I'm saying
> > > > that those
> > > > groups that are writing extensions should be consulting with
> > > > those who
> > > > have been developing and maintaining it (in the RSVP and MPLS
> > > > groups) in
> > > > order to ensure that:
> > > >       - Their goal can't be achieved without extending
> > the language
> > > >       - That their extension doesn't overlap a similar extension
> > > >         from somebody else.
> > > >       - That their extension doesn't significantly change
> > the overall
> > > >         semantics of RSVP.
> > > >       - That their extension is sufficiently flexible so
> > that other
> > > >         groups can build off of it instead of
> > re-inventing the wheel
> > > >         with yet another incompatible extension.
> > > >
> > > > Not only isn't this happening, but there appears to be no
> > > > desire to see
> > > > this happen.
> > > >
> > > > -- David
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > 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  : Work: +32 3 2408491 - Home: +32 2 3434361
> >