Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt

From: "Malcolm Betts" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 17:38:12 -0500

Kireeti, if we can agree that we have two problems and from the perspective
of an external SDO they are closely coupled.  One way of moving forward
would be to develop two IDs in parallel.  The first based on the existing
anderson-mpls-g-change-proc, modified to state explicitly that requests for
changes by external SDOs are exempt from this process.  The second draft
would address the liaison process.  The key issue with changes requested by
external SDOs is that in general they will be based on the desire to apply
(G)MPLS protocols to connection management of connection oriented circuit
switched (COCS) networks for the benefit of COCS clients - i.e. to
applications that are well outside the "normal" IETF problem space. To keep
the activity  focussed (as suggested in some earlier emails) perhaps we
could limit the scope to the sub ip area only (at least initially).  I think
that Steve Trowbridge in an earlier email (copy below) provided a good
summary of the objectives of the liaison process.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 5:02 PM
To: Stephen Trowbridge
Cc: [email-masked]; ccamp
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt

Hi Steve,

On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Stephen Trowbridge wrote:

> Lets try to zero in on what the problem really is.

Good idea.

> I think that liaison handling (or the lack thereof) is not just a 
> problem. It is THE problem.

I disagree.  I think there are two problems, and both are important.

<snip>

<insert for Steve Trowbridge>

IETF has one set of requirements for the kinds of networks that they
envision and are within their charter. They develop an architecture and
protocol solutions to support those requirements. ITU-T has an (overlapping
but different) set of requirements for the kinds of networks they envision
(including lots of TDM & WDM traffic that doesn't necessarily carry IP,
etc.). Nobody says that the additional ITU-T requirements are valid for the
IETF application, or that IETF must solve the ITU-T requirements with IETF
developed protocols (they can choose to, but there is no obligation).

When the ITU-T brings these requirements to the IETF's attention, there are
a variety of perfectly reasonable responses:
- The IETF can say "That requirement is important for us also, let's work
  toward a common solution".
- The IETF can say "That requirement is not important for the IETF scope
  of work, but we can see how it is important for yours. From our
  experience with the protocol and our desire for sanity in the protocol
  and all of its extensions, we can offer you the following advice about
  how the protocol can best solve your problem ..."
- The IETF can say "That requirement is not important for the IETF scope
  of work and we are not particularly interested in helping with a solution
-
  you are on your own, but please assign any protocol codepoints through
  IANA and document your extensions as an info RFC so that we can prevent
  any conflict with other extensions.
They could EVEN say "We think you might have misunderstood the requirements:
do you think that the following restatement of the problem would allow your
needs to be met with the current protocols: ..."

But the answer that I would have trouble with would be the IETF saying "That
requirement is not important for the IETF scope of work, and therefore no
solution should be developed for your problem AT ALL. After all, if it is
not important for IETF, it must be irrelevant for everybody."

Of course, without a liaison process, I don't know how we get any of these
responses. Incoming liaisons seem to hit the dustbin before they get serious
consideration regarding which of the above response types might be most
appropriate. Regards, Steve

<end inserted text>

Malcolm Betts

Phone: +1 613 763 7860 (ESN 393)
FAX:   +1 613 763 6608 (ESN 393)
email: [email-masked]

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 18:28:03 -0500

In message <[email-masked]>, "
> summary of the objectives of the liaison process.

This is just fine except there is no concensus either way on Steve's
opinion that the role of liasons should be changed.  Kireeti already
told you and he have to agree to disagree on this.

Therefore Loa's draft should not mention exclusion of liasons, because
changing the liason relationship is not the current intent, and
because the liason relationship will be addressed separately as
suggested by Scott Bradner.

The role of liasons can be addressed separately on another list.

Curtis

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:58:44 -0800 (PST)

Hi Curtis,

On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Curtis Villamizar wrote:

> opinion that the role of liasons should be changed.

Going further, I don't think consensus in the CCAMP WG (or even in
the sub-IP area) will change this -- there *are* some things in the
IETF that don't work by consensus.

> suggested by Scott Bradner.

Agreed.

FYI: a group of us are working on a liaison draft, mainly to put the
issue in front of the IESG.  *I* don't envision this as a sub-IP pilot,
nor do I see this coming of the the CCAMP WG (nor the ITU-T) -- it will
be an individual submission from a bunch of concerned individuals.
Then again, it's a group of us, and we need to come to consensus :-)

Kireeti.