Subject: RE: Communication in response to the OIF

From: "Stephen Shew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 14:09:51 -0500

On the OIF contacts:
Jim Jones' email address is: [email-masked], he is the OIF
Architecture/Signaling WG chair
John McDonough's email address is: [email-masked],he is the
Vice-President of the OIF
Steve Joiner's email address is: [email-masked]

On point b) below, the OIF is a Rec. A5 qualified organization with the
ITU-T and has liaised work many times with SG15 of the ITU-T.  In several
meetings in 2002, the OIF voted to adopt ASON architecture and requirements
(including G.7715 on routing) for its Implementation Agreements to comply
with.  It should not alarm CCAMP that the OIF also has a cooperative
relationship with ITU-T with regard to ASON routing.  Hence I suggest
removing point b).

-----Original Message-----
From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 09:13
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: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 20:53:15 +0100

stephen:

actually, i disagree with your suggestion, and this
for three reasons:

1) you're part of the ason routing design team so you
    should be aware that there is an effort to avoid
    another protocol clash (and this independently of
    its origin since the result is the same) and thus
    the aim is to converge from the early beginning -
    this has been re-stated during the last ccamp wg

2) yes, there is a clear concern about the "right way"
    to approach a given problem, during the last iet59
    meeting, w/i each non-protocol specific wg where
    protocol(s) procedures/extensions and usage were
    proposed exactly the same concern was raised - so
    i would even include ospf wg (and is-is wg in case)
    in the loop -

3) if oif wants to put their requirement and solution
    on the fast track nothing prevents they submit their
    solution as an internet draft but from the below
    proposal it seems much better they deliver their
    delta requirements so that ietf could address both
    oif and itu-t needs at once (btw these requirements
    should be aligned from an architectural but also
    functional perspective since they were already
    backed up from each other)

- dimitri.

-- 
Papadimitriou Dimitri
E-mail : [email-masked]
E-mail : [email-masked]
Webpage: http://psg.com/~dpapadimitriou/
Address: Fr. Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone  : +32 3 240-8491

---

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 13:30:07 -0800 (PST)

Hi Stephen,

> Steve Joiner's email address is: [email-masked]

Thanks!  I got these from several others as well -- thanks to all.

> relationship with ITU-T with regard to ASON routing.  Hence I suggest

Let me clarify: the concern stems not from the OIF having a
relationship with the ITU-T -- that is not a matter for the IETF to
worry about either way.  Rather, the alarm is that the OIF's work on
routing overlaps with the IETF's, and the resultant fragmentation and
confusion in the marketplace is undesirable.  Hence point b).

Kireeti.
-------