The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2003-Mar> msg00187



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

{Possible Spam} Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt

  • From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org>
  • Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:40:51 -0500
  • cc: curtis@fictitious.org, Mark.Jones@mail.sprint.com, ccamp@ops.ietf.org, dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com, gash@att.com, mpls@UU.NET


In message <3E6C83E6.F94C0CD0@alcatel.de>, Gert Grammel writes:
> Curtis,
> 
> you've wrote:
> 
>      It would be best if ITU members go off and waste their own time
>      pursuing ASON capabilities, just as the ATM Forum went off and wasted
>      their time on Q.2931 capability in UNI 3.x, 4.x, ...
> 
> and I don't agree with that. In my view it would be best if ITU-T members
> were able to understand and accept the ideas behind GMPLS and would
> provide valuable input to bring this work forward.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Gert


I absolutely agree with your statement above.

If there is consensus in the IETF that ASON should not be considered
as a set of requirements it would also be best if ITU-T members tried
to understand why this consensus was reached rather than try to
initiate procedural changes to allow it to be jammed through
regardless of whether is makes technical sense.

Perhaps I should have qualified my statement that if ITU-T members
continue to behave as they are now doing, then "It would be best if
ITU members go off and waste their own time ...".

Curtis