Subject: RE: {Possible Spam} Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-pr oc-00.txt

From: "Jones, Mark L [GMG]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:22:20 -0600

Curtis and Gert,

I would guess that many of us who participate mostly at the ITU-T would
support this position if it had not already proven to fail.  Many of those
at the ITU-T do understand the reasons for the IETF consensus, but they do
not believe it justifies adoption of the IETF solution for the ITU-T set of
requirements.  So, what do we do?

My guess is that the differences in scopes and points of view will always
lead to differences in opinion on what and how things should be done.  Where
a single application is being addressed, I had hoped that we could agree
between the two organizations, who should be the lead.  For most IP and IP
based protocols and applications, I think most see the IETF as the lead.
However, where L0/L1 applications are concerned, that is not the case.

The interest in refining procedures is simply a way of addressing the issue,
or maintaining a reasonable working relationship between the two groups.  I
hope your conversations at the upcoming IETF meeting help us resolve this
issue.

Regards,

Mark Loyd Jones
Optical Transport and Networking
Sprint - Wireline Technology Development
913-794-2139

-----Original Message-----
From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 10:41 AM
To: Gert Grammel
Cc: [email-masked]; Jones, Mark L [GMG]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: {Possible Spam} Re: I-D
ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt 

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
miss
  and therefore delete posts by non-subscribers.  if you wish to regularly
  post from an address that is not subscribed to this mailing list, send a
  message to <listname>[email-masked] and ask to have the alternate
  address added to the list of addresses from which submissions are
  automatically accepted. ]

In message <[email-masked]>, 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

---

From: Gert Grammel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:27:53 +0100

Mark,

I feel sorry about your first sentence:

     I would guess that many of us who participate mostly at the ITU-T
     would support this position if it had not already proven to fail.

As been said in my first email, the match is 1:1 and I personally believe that
it would now be a good time for a second try. Anyhow it is good to hear that
there are some of us  thinking about how to come to a consented solution. Maybe
we don't share views on the concrete subject (In my view an SPC is an SPC
whether it is on L0/1 or L2/3, so what is *specific* there?). Anyhow I think
that this email discussion was helpful to understand where we are today and my
hope is that we were able to stimulate phantasy on both sides on how to proceed.

Best regards

Gert

--
Alcatel Optical Network Division    Gert Grammel
Network Strategy                    phone: +49 711 821 47368
Lorenzstrasse 10                    fax: +49 711 821 43169
D-70435 Stuttgart                   mailto:[email-masked]