Subject: Re: New PWE3 Charter Items: SPVC Interworking

From: Eric Rosen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 13:00:43 -0500

> Why  would the  group  responsible  for the  *emulation*  of a  particular
> network technology, be  better suited to work on  the interworking of that
> technology  with  an  "emulation  of  itself",  than  the  group  actually
> responsible for the *design & development* of that technology?  

I was only addressing  the issue of whether the task was  or was not clearly
out  of scope.  Which  of two  groups is  best suited  to do  the task  is a
different issue. 

However,  there  are  many possible  reasons  why  the  group that  did  the
emulation might be better suited to  working on the emulation than the group
that  did the original  technology.  For  instance, the  group that  did the
original  technology  might  have  a  poor  understanding  of  the  evolving
environment, and might  be very focused on a lot  of obsolete and irrelevant
things  that needn't  be maintained  in the  environment where  the emulated
technology  runs.  Further,  if the  interworking  in question  is going  to
affect what runs on the IP side  (which seems likely, as no one will want to
change the legacy side), then one may need to go where the IP expertise is.

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:32:47 -0500

On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 05:00:37PM -0000, [email-masked] allegedly
wrote:
> network technology, be better suited to work on the interworking of
> that technology with an "emulation of itself", than the group actually

Forget the word emulation, we could spend a week or more on it alone
:-).  The basic point is pretty simple -- if the interworking implies
requirements for IETF technology, including pseudowires, then it's a
problem the IETF should pay attention to.

---

From: Mustapha Aissaoui <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:59:47 -0500

Scott and Richard,
both the ATM Forum and IETF should be interested in this work. There are
hopefully enough experts of both ATM and IP/MPLS who attend the PWE3 working
group to have this work done here. I do not think it is worth debating which
body should own it as long as there is a liaison and communication between
the two bodies. If the IESG decides that this is out of scope of the IETF,
then we should take it to the ATM Forum.

Regards,
Mustapha.
------------
Scott W Brim wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 15:16:57 -0500

Mustapha: I wasn't debating ownership, just IETF scope.  A lot of good
work is done elsewhere, including the ATMF and many others.  I like your
optimism.  

swb