Subject: Modifications to IP

From: Russ White <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 11:21:55 -0400 (EDT)

Y'all:

I see there is some recent discussion on list about concerns over
modifying IP to interact with RPR, and the framework document. Is
there any paragraph anyone can point to in the draft that
indicates IP will not run over RPR as it sits today, with no
modifications to IP at all? Is there any paragraph within the
draft which suggests that IP needs to be changed to accomidate
RPR?

If so, please graciously post it to the list, so we can all
understand what part of the draft explicitely states IP will need
to be modified, and work on the wording/requirements placed
there.

The draft proposes additions to RPR to support IP better into the
future--it does not recommend any changes to IP, nor any other
protocol. Those recommendations are outside this working
group. They should addressed within the appropriate working
groups as needed, not here.

If you don't think RPR needs any additions to support IP or any
other layer protocols, then I would suggest to you that it isn't
going to hurt anyone to add the small things suggested in the
framework doc and see what happens. It's better to provide
options that are not used than to fail to offer options and have
the physical layer go unused (fail in the market) simply because
options do not exist. 

1. Don't try to outguess the market. Provide options and let them
play out.

2. FDDI isn't a good example, except perhaps as an example of
what _not_ to do, since I don't know of a single vendor actively
building new FDDI products. Do you?

Let's not argue over things which are not in the framework. A
layer 2 only philosophy is perfectly fine, but that philosophy
should not preclude the addition of generic mechanisms which will
allow others to use the medium in different ways than a layer 2
only philosophy might entail.

Russ

_____________________________
[email-masked] <>< Grace Alone

---

From: Raj Sharma <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 18:59:20 -0700

Khaled, The spirit of what your saying is sheer goodness
and I will appear like an ogre objecting to such openness.
However, it is a good time for me to clarify my views.

The problem is that:
1. Presentations made at IEEE were made as recommendations by IETF
(couched as "this is the current thinking within IETF).
This is questioned here. That's all. As pointed out these are individual
opinions.

2. Presenting to IEEE802.17 WG because the participants may not
understand IP is IMHO - arrogant. There are many people in IEEE 802.17 
who have worked extensively on IP and currently working on products 
that have IP and MPLS functionality (without any modifications) and these
are being deployed in RPR-like networks. I have personally taken
offense to this notion.

I agree that keeping the dialog open is important when things like
MIBs have to be defined or deciding on MPLS shim.

The argument here is whether there is consensus within the IETF WG
on this document being the primordial roots to give birth and shape 
RPR or is it just a waving an IETF flag to ensure IEEE stays attentive
to IETF's needs. My point is there is no need to do the later. 

As an IEEE 802.17 WG member I have a serious problem with the former and
will
need to raise this issue with LMSC executive board since the time slot
allotted 
for this presentations is under the pretext of cooperation between
IEEE and IETF and not individuals and IEEE.

raj

-----Original Message-----
From: Khaled Amer [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 2:45 PM
To: Khaled Amer
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Modifications to IP

Folks,
I'm surprised at this discussions which has been going on and on.

I think that it doesn't hurt for the IEEE 802.17 to know about some of the
suggestions that the IETF has in order to develop a better standard. Right
now, at the IEEE 802.17WG, we're looking at all proposals and inputs that we
can get. We all welcome input from the IETF too (even if it's tentative
and/or not completely agreed upon yet). Keeping the dialog open can only
help and we should encourage cooperation between the IEEE and the IETF
(unless there is more to all of this than what I've been reading through the
reflector).

Khaled Amer
President, AmerNet Inc.
Architecture Analysis and Performance Modeling Specialists
Address:     13711 Solitaire Way, Irvine, CA 92620
Phone:        (949)552-1114                      Fax:     (949)552-1116
e-mail:         [email-masked]
Web:           www.performancemodeling.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "RJ Atkinson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Russ White" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: Modifications to IP

> At 11:21 19/07/01, Russ White wrote:
> >protocol.
> A self-contradictory sentence.  "proposed additions to RPR" is
> semantically identical to "recommended change to another protocol".
> Maybe you meant something else ?
>
> >framework doc and see what happens.
>
> I totally disagree that proposing to add stuff ("gorp") is
> not going to hurt anyone.  In fact, adding stuff is likely
> to hurt the utility and deployability of 802.17 by making it
> overly complex, expensive, and hard to deploy.
>
> If folks want to modify 802.17, the place to make such proposals
> is within IEEE 802.17, not within IETF.  Certainly it is not proper
> to do so within IETF when there is no consensus evident within IETF
> for the proposal. Even if there were consensus here, the place where
> IEEE protocols should be discussed (and proposals made) is in IEEE
> not in IETF.  This is just a matter of proper scope for each standards
> group.
>
> Ran
> [email-masked]
>
>