RE: WG Consensus Call: draft-swallow-gmpls-overlay-00.txt

[Kireeti Kompella <[e-mail]>]

Hi Zhi,

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Lin, Zhi-Wei (Zhi) wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Actually the work been done in the ITU-T deals specifically with the overlay, at least the application that operators have identified as been important to them. These documents are planned to be consented at the Jan ITU-T meeting (G.7713.x series). ITU-T has communicated to the IETF regarding this work for some time now (I'm bad at remembering dates but you can probably trace back the emails or the liaison statements).

I'm probably confused, but I recall the issue that the liaison statement
raised as being "call and connection separation".  Perhaps that's the
same as overlay; if so, it would be useful to clarify that.

> In addition, I have submitted two I-Ds, one on requirements and another on protocol extensions needed to support the overlay. It is my understanding that the protocol extensions document has passed through IESG review and sent off to the RFC editors already?
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lin-ccamp-gmpls-ason-rqts-00.txt
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-lin-ccamp-gmpls-ason-rsvpte-04.txt

My understanding was that these documents were to be standards track;
I learned at in Atlanta that their status was changed to informational.
It would have been friendly to state the change on the mailing list for
everyone's benefit.

In any case, as they are to be informational, I think it makes sense
that the IETF pursue its own standards track documents for overlay mode
if it sees fit (i.e., a chartered work item, and rough consensus).  The
CCAMP WG has been careful (with help from delegates from the ITU :-))
not to tread on the ITU's standards jurisdiction in the course of
developing IETF standards; however in this case, the IETF is extending
(or clarifying) its own protocols, and this issue doesn't arise.  One
might ask if the ITU is treading on the IETF's toes in this matter,
but it's a bit late for that.

Zhi, you didn't actually indicate an opinion on the swallow draft.
I will assume you don't have one unless I get mail otherwise.

Thanks,
Kireeti.