Subject: RE: Communication in response to the OIF

From: "Ong, Lyndon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:55:10 -0800

Hi Kireeti,

The response looks generally good and I think it is good
to open lines of communication between the groups.  A
couple of things:

-- I did not make the presentation as a formal representative
of OIF, since there is no such person at this time.  It was
made at the request of Adrian following our interaction at
the ITU SG15 Rapporteur's meeting.  My only role in this is
editor of the draft document at OIF (oif2003.259).

-- I believe there is no intention to publicize the OIF 
demonstration as in any way IETF-related; however it might
be difficult to describe the routing without using the
acronym "OSPF" :o)  I think OIF will be sensitive to the
concerns that you identify.

BTW, I do think that Steve Trowbridge brings up a good point,
which is that this work, while currently differing in the
protocol details, does support the concept of GMPLS and the
optical network control plane and in that sense should be
seen as a positive thing.

Cheers,

Lyndon

-----Original Message-----
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 6:13 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Alex Zinin; Bill Fenner
Subject: Communication in response to the OIF

Hi All,

Here's a first draft of a reply to the OIF.  Please comment to the
list by Monday, March 15 2004.

If someone has email addresses for Steve Joiner, Jim Jones and John
McDonough (and titles for the last two), that would be very helpful.

Thanks,
Kireeti.
--------

<Date>

 From: Kireeti Kompella & Adrian Farrel, IETF CCAMP Working Group Chairs

To: Mr. Steve Joiner, OIF Technical Committee Chair
Cc: Jim Jones,
Cc: John McDonough,
Cc: Alex Zinin,       IETF Routing Area Director
Cc: Bill Fenner,      IETF Routing Area Director

Dear Steve,

Thank you for your communication regarding the current status of OIF
signaling and routing work, and the associated documentation.  This
communication is in response.  As there is no formal liaison
relationship yet between the IETF and the OIF, this communication is
not treated as a liaison; hopefully, this situation will be rectified
soon.

Thank you too for allowing Mr. Lyndon Ong to present a synopsis of
the work going on at the OIF with regard to Intra-carrier E-NNI
routing.  It was both useful and enlightening.

However, both of these gave us cause for alarm, on two fronts:
a) The development of new or modified code points and procedures
   in OSPF without expert review from the OSPF WG in the IETF
   contravenes IETF procedure, especially as the IETF pays special
   attention to changes in protocols in the Routing Area, such as
   OSPF.
b) The development of routing for optical networks without expert
   review from the CCAMP WG is also a source of concern, especially
   in the light of a cooperative effort between the ITU-T and the
   IETF in exactly this area.

Mr. Ong's emphasis that this work was experimental and purely for the
purpose of testing alleviated some of our concerns.  It would be very
helpful to hear this officially from the OIF; furthermore, in the
interests of openness and full disclosure, we would strongly urge the
modification of a paragraph in the Introduction of the draft routing
document OIF2003.259 as follows:

   "The base protocol as defined by this document is OSPF with
    extensions for Traffic Engineering and GMPLS.  This document
    proposes to use GMPLS-OSPF to operate at each hierarchical
    level, with multiple such levels stacking up to form the
    routing hierarchy.  Extensions have been defined in the forms
    of (sub-) TLVs to accommodate the requirements as defined in the
    G.8080, G.7715, and G.7715.1.  Note that these extensions as
    currently specified are purely for the purpose of experimentation
    and testing; in particular, they have not yet been reviewed by
    the OSPF and CCAMP Working Groups in the IETF.  Furthermore they
    use experimental codepoints, and as such must not be used in
    production deployments."

Mr. Ong also brought to our attention that the OIF will be holding
an interoperability demonstration of this specification at the
SuperComm in June 2004.  Due to the preliminary nature of this
specification, the IETF would strongly recommend that the words
OSPF, OSPF-TE and GMPLS not be used in the context of this
demonstration, nor that there be any implication that this work
has been reviewed or sanctioned by the IETF.

It would be helpful in determining the future relationship between
the IETF and the OIF to understand how the OIF intends to progress
this document.

 o Is this intended to become an Implementation Agreement in
   something close to its current form?

 o Does the OIF intend to submit this as a submission in the ITU-T
   SG15 to become a Recommendation?

 o Does the OIF intend to submit this document as an Internet Draft
   to become an IETF RFC?

Thank you for your attention in this matter, and for initiating this
dialogue.  We hope that this develops into a fruitful relationship.
To that end, we enclose a product of the joint work between the
ITU-T and the IETF on Routing Requirements for ASON.  This is a
work in progress, and we solicit your comments:
 - to identify any requirements that the OIF has over and above those
    requirements established by the ITU-T ASON model
 - to ensure that the solution developed within the IETF addresses
    the requirements of both the ITU-T and OIF.

We hope that your feedback will signal the beginning of an active
cooperation between the IETF and the OIF.

Sincerely,
<etc.>

<attachment: current version of GMPLS ASON Routing Requirements doc>

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 13:40:10 -0800 (PST)

Hi Lyndon,

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Ong, Lyndon wrote:

> to open lines of communication between the groups.

Thanks, that's good to hear.

> A

Understood.  Hopefully, in the process of formalizing the relation
between the IETF and the OIF, such a person will indeed be named.

> concerns that you identify.

Good news!

> seen as a positive thing.

I see that aspect, but it is incomplete.  As you well know, 7713.2 is
based on GMPLS RSVP-TE, but there are serious divergences as well.  I
would rather not see that happen again -- which is why I initiated the
ASON Routing Requirements Design Team, for example.  Now, the same
seems to be happening with the OIF :-(

Kireeti.
-------