Subject: RE: [IP-Optical] AD-review of draft-ietf-ipo-carrier-requirements

From: "Yong Xue" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2003 18:46:47 -0400

-----Original Message-----
From: Xue, Yong [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 3:35 PM
To: [email-masked]'
Cc: [email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'; [email-masked]';
[email-masked]'
Subject: RE: [IP-Optical] AD-review of
draft-ietf-ipo-carrier-requirements

Alex and IP-Optical WG

As the editor of the "Optical Service Requirements" Draft RFC document, I
have collected some input from the authors of this document and want share
them with you and the IP-Optical WG community.

1. We disagree with your and other's comments that this document is simply a
recompilation of the contents from OIF and ITU. Most authors of this
document are active participants and contributors of those requirements in
both OIF and ITU. One of the initial objectives was to bring the
carrier-driven requirements developed in OIF and ITU into IETF to help
IETF/IPO community understand the carrier's needs (remember IETF and OIF/ITU
did not have formal liaison relationship at the time this document was
started). It also contains fair amount of the contents that are unique to
this document.

2. This document was initiated by the IPO WG chairs to ask a group of people
form major carriers to provide optical service requirements for IP layer,
and we did that and more. However, we did not receive much constructive
suggestion as to the suitability of the direction and contents of the
document during past two years. If the problem was seen, it should have been
brought to our attention earlier, not now.

3. This doc was intended to be an informational RFC and tried to reflect the
major high-level functional requirements and architectural framework
envisioned by the carrier community for the intelligent optical transport
network relative to IP and other service networks. Those requirements are
currently refined at OIF and ITU, a consolidated high level requirements
combining ITU ASON, OIF NNI and UNI, and IP over Optical specific
requirements will certainly be a good value this document can bring.

4. For all practical purpose, we see the following options for the document
- Keep the existing scope, but clean up the document and incorporate the
latest requirement development in OIF and ITU by carriers to improve the doc
quality and move forward. Keep the document as a high-level document.
- Reduce the scope of the document and expect major rewrite to focus on the
detailed IP over Optical requirements.
- Drop the document since it's not in the best interest of all the authors
and others  if it lacks the interest and support from IPO WG.

5. Appreciate Dimitri Papadimitriou's spending time to provide specific
comments on the document. We will address all his comments and concerns if
it is decided to progress the document.

-Yong

_______________________________________________
IP-Optical mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/ip-optical

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2003 16:42:51 +0200

hi, see in-line...

> both OIF and ITU. 

the second statement doesn't strictly speaking justify the
first one nor rationalizes it from an ipo wg perspective

> One of the initial objectives was to bring the

then one possibility would be to point out to what's really
specific compared to existing documents that are available
elsewhere, but the scope must be clearly defined browsing
from architectural until system design aspects doesn't seem
to be the most appropriated way to do so

> and we did that and more. 

be a "major carrier" doesn't give more merits to the technical
argumentation (than coming from a "small carrier") here, the
arguments are evaluated on their technical merits not from
their origin (oif, etc.) or the affiliation of their editor(s)
and/or contributor(s)

> However, we did not receive much constructive

the scope of the document has shifted three times since its
first version:
- san diego'00: operators to define control plane req's
   under the ipo wg umbrella (as requested by the chairs)
- london'01: organised as a list of numbered requirements
   trying to accommodate/direct ietf developments
- and then shift at slc'01 towards the control plane
   requirements from the itu ason work (note most of this
   architectural/functional work had been consented by
   that time at the itu) and oif dvp's

difficult to ask to an engineer community to follow your
reasoning behind these continuous shifts (it also means
that either the scope of the document wasn't well defined
from the early beginning or that authors they didn't know
what they really wanted from the early beginning)

> network relative to IP and other service networks. 

this statement seems contadictory to the one listed in point 1.

> Those requirements are

the same applies here.

> quality and move forward. Keep the document as a high-level document.

there is a clear contradiction here b/w "high level" and parts
of its current content - how can a document claim to be high
level and implementation/protocol neutral while referring to
implementation agreements defined by the oif ? - so if it has
to progress in that way there is imho an important clean-up &
consolidation effort to be provided to make here consistent
progress

(*) note that this comment doesn't apply only to this ipo i-d
(see also previous e-mail)

> detailed IP over Optical requirements.

there are several levels of requirements:
- architectural/models
- service/functional
- protocol and related
- operational/management/etc.

as long as the requirement level to be covered by this i-d is
not agreed and clearly defined i don't know how it can really
and efficiently progress in becoming useful for this community

> and others  if it lacks the interest and support from IPO WG.

depends on the previous points but if the situation doesn't
improve quickly i don't think we will have any other choice

> it is decided to progress the document.

thanks.

- dimitri.

-- 
Papadimitriou Dimitri
E-mail : [email-masked]
Private: http://www.rc.bel.alcatel.be/~papadimd/index.html
E-mail : [email-masked]
Public : http://psg.com/~dpapadimitriou/
Address: Fr. Wellesplein 1, B-2018 Antwerpen, Belgium
Phone  : +32 3 240-8491

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:13:11 -0700

Folks-

 Now that the Last Call is over, my reading of what I've seen on the
 list is that the document clearly does not have sufficient support of
 the WG (in fact, I haven't seen any supportive comments except from
 the authors), and that there clearly are issues with it. Each of
 these alone would be enough for me to conclude that the document is
 not ready for publication.

 As such, I have to return the document back to the WG. I will also
 follow up with the WG chairs regarding further actions required wrt
 this document in particular and the WG milestones in general.

Alex Zinin
IETF Sub-IP Area Co-Director