Subject: Re: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational]

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 15:01:34 +0100

Steve,

it appears to me that you decribes a situation that many of us we are 
very familiar
with, most of us have sent -00.txt IDs to working groups, and have been 
met by a
complete lack of interest.
In retrospect I have to say that most of the time the wg was right - bad 
idea.

To bring work into the working group(s) you have to generate interest 
and discussion,
lack of interest signifies end of the road.

What you say is that you had (have) very little interest for the work 
you proposed,
so under normal circumstances this would just have been dropped. Given 
current
circumstances - with a great deal of interest elsewhere this came back 
again and
again and we now even have the IESG taken a decision to approve work 
(that require
IETF consensus) on very shaky grounds.

For my part that is history! But it seems to me that putting the blame 
on the ietf
when one fail to create interest for a work is self-defeating.

What we need to do now is looking in to to things
- how codepoints for the (G)MPLS namespace are allocated and make 
certain that we
  have a   "uniform" approach to this and common guidelines for the 
whole namespace
- how wi handle requirements on extensions/changes in the protocols 
specified for
  (G)MPLS and come up with a process that guarantee that IETF acts 
correctly and
  timely when other organizations request such changes/extensions, but 
also that
  the IETF is in control of what is happening to the (G)MPLS and that 
such a process
  is accepted and used by parties asking for extensions/changes.

I sincerly hope to get your support for such a process, I'm working on a
-00.txt version and would hate to get into a "no response" siutation ;)

/Loa

>
> Jerry,
> Lets be clear on the timeline and what you consider to be "recent".
> - The ASON requirements were communicated October 2001 -
>   request for help from ccamp (no response)
> - Analysis of ASON requirements against GMPLS protocols, identifying 
> gaps,
>   completed Febrary 2002 - request ccamp to help close gaps (no response)
> - Proposals into ITU-T agreed about how to close gaps communicated May 
> 2002,
>   with request now to align the GMPLS documents with ITU-T work 
> (again, no
>   response)
> - Final request for comments, October 2002, (again no response)
>
>