RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

["Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS" <[e-mail]>]

Jonathan,
 
These statements are not only not correct, they don't make sense
considering you were involved in the work, do a refresh and go back in
the years, and you will see ITU-IETF liaisons (prior to publication):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file151.doc
 
and:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file132.txt
 
and there are many more. My co-chair, our previous ccamp co-chair, and
Kam (ITU's Q14 Rap) have worked together over these past couple of years
to ensure the ASON work progressed - jointly. Considering the number of
cross-participants, a lack of IETF-OIF liaison can not be used as the
basis of the current confusion and duplication in work. And anyone can
participate and access IETF documents - it's an open process.
 
If this OIF document is on an OSPF implementation "has been implemented
by many vendors" and the vendors intend it to be production use (vs.
experimental), then the OIF (or a vendor) needs to follow the IETF
process. That's a different subject.
 
The current liaison was scoped as requirements which is why we are
trying to understand it.
 
Lyndon has already responded saying he believes there is no
mis-alignment. Thanks Lyndon. We will go with that.
 
Thanks,
Deborah

________________________________

From: Sadler, Jonathan B. [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 12:29 PM
To: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS; Ong, Lyndon; [e-mail]
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI



Hi Deborah,

 

It seems that your response centers on three topics:

1.       The alignment of the IETF architecture/eval documents with the
requirements/architecture of other groups,

2.       The OIF Draft IA making statements regarding the identifiers
used by GMPLS routing when carried by OSPF, and

3.       Whether the participants in the design teams did so in any
official capacity on behalf of other groups

 

Regarding Topic 1:

 

It's too bad that your exhibit makes my point well - that the text was
NOT liaised to the ITU for review/agreement prior to sending it for
publication.  If you look at the liaison you provided:

-    you will see it says "for information", not for action meaning
there is no intent to find out if it is aligned, and

-    you will note the email you provided states it was notifying ITU of
publication. Witness the specific text:

"The CCAMP working group is pleased to inform you of the _publication_
of RFC 4258"

 

Again, I state that the final IETF requirements and IETF evaluation
documents were not liaised to the ITU for review/agreement, so it is
impossible to say if they are aligned with the OIF requirements.

 

To remove any potential receiver confusion what this statement means,
let me put in another way:

WHEREAS,      the ITU has developed a set of requirements and
architecture for ASON routing commonly known as G.8080, G.7715 and
G.7715.1, and

WHEREAS,      the members of the OIF are on record that the requirements
and architecture specified in G.8080, G.7715 and G.7715.1 are the
requirements and architecture to be followed by the OIF, and

WHEREAS,      the IETF has been working on documents which purport to be
accurate restatements of the requirements and architecture specified by
ITU for ASON routing, and

WHEREAS,      the final documents of the IETF have not been liaised to
the ITU for the purposes of review or agreement prior to publication,
allowing determination that they are accurate restatements, 

THEREFORE,   it cannot be said that the documents of the IETF are
aligned with the requirements or architecture specified by the ITU, and

THEREFORE,   it cannot be said that the documents of the IETF are
aligned with the requirements or architecture of the OIF.

 

Please be aware the reason that the OIF did NOT restate the ITU
Requirements and Architecture documents (unlike CCAMP), and instead went
on record saying that the ITU documents were the requirements and
architecture documents to be followed was to REMOVE the possibility of
OIF-speak, and support convergence on well-defined ITU-speak. This goes
a long way to removing confusion.

 

Regarding Topic 2:

 

The IETF requirements and evaluation documents don't make any specific
statements about the fitness of IETF protocols for ASON routing. The OIF
document text (which predates even the IETF requirements document) is
making specific statements about OSPF - statements that are based on
Section 10 of G.8080. CCAMP has not finished (started?) a document that
makes any specific statements about OSPF.

 

Again I ask, wouldn't it be better to look at this document which has
been implemented by many vendors, and successfully interoperability
tested many times over many years to see what can be leveraged instead
of starting from scratch?

 

Regarding Topic 3:

 

While Lyndon and I are participants in the ITU and OIF, we are not
authorized to make statements on behalf of either organization other
than the statements authorized by those organizations.  Our
participation in the design teams were not as official representatives
of the ITU or OIF.  The only way for the documents to be considered
aligned would be to liaise them prior to publication to the ITU or OIF
for review/agreement and wait for the response.  Again, since this was
not done, it is unclear if the documents are in alignment.

 

It should also be noted that the OIF has been interested in setting up a
formal OIF-IETF liaison relationship to remove this misconception, while
CCAMP has prevented it.  It seems that the confusion in the IETF would
be lower if the liaison relationship was formed.  Certainly, this level
of confusion does not exist in the ITU where an OIF-ITU liaison
relationship has existed for many years.

 

I look forward to reviewing the new liaison text.

 

Jonathan Sadler

 

________________________________

From: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:58 AM
To: Sadler, Jonathan B.; Ong, Lyndon; [e-mail]
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

 

Hi Jonathan,

 

I think you meant OIF below, as ITU and IETF work on ASON has been
tightly coordinated e.g. a quick back search:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaison_detail.cgi?detail_id=150

 

This mis-match is always the concern when work is duplicated in other
groups.For OIF to be progressing a document identifying issues with
GMPLS for supporting ASON when already CCAMP has finished their document
is not only a misuse of people's time (both in OIF and IETF), it also
causes confusion in the industry (we now have ITU-speak, CCAMP-speak,
and OIF-speak).

 

As the hope of the CCAMP's ASON Design Teams was to have a
representation of ITU, OIF, and CCAMP (especially considering Lyndon is
OIF's Liaison to CCAMP (and editor of the OIF document) and you as
chair), if both of you have difficulty judging the alignment of this
document vs. ASON requirements and CCAMP's work, then the document is
not helping either OIF's intention to develop standards in alignment
with ITU and IETF or CCAMP's ability to develop an ASON solution.

 

We should re-spin the Liaison to inform OIF that this work has been
completed in CCAMP and to request that OIF's evaluation sections be
removed and replaced with references to the Evaluation document (vs.
trying to do multiple-speak which has us all confused) and expand on the
comments (Dimitri's mail which Lyndon has agreed is very useful). I'll
work on it today, and send later.

 

"Significant" Thanks on the confusion;-)

Deborah

 

________________________________

From: Sadler, Jonathan B. [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 5:38 PM
To: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS; Ong, Lyndon; [e-mail]
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

Hi Deborah,

 

While I do not speak for the OIF, I can say that the members of the OIF
are on record (by motion) to follow the Requirements and Architecture
specified in G.8080, G.7715 and G.7715.1.  Since the final IETF
requirements and IETF evaluations documents were never liaised to the
ITU for comment/agreement before they were sent for publication, I
cannot say that they are aligned with the requirements of the OIF.

 

Regards,

 

Jonathan Sadler

 

________________________________

From: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 4:31 PM
To: Sadler, Jonathan B.; Ong, Lyndon; [e-mail]
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

 

Hi Jonathan,

 

I just sent mail to Lyndon to ask if he felt CCAMP's work was aligned.
From your mail below, you do believe that CCAMP's ASON requirements
document and evaluation document meet the needs of OIF? As the OIF
Liaison stated it specified requirements, we do want to ensure that the
work is aligned.

 

Thanks,

Deborah

 

________________________________

From: Sadler, Jonathan B. [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 4:32 PM
To: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS; Ong, Lyndon; [e-mail]
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

Hi Deborah, Lyndon, et al,

 

Some additional comments:

 - The hierarchical model discussed in the draft IA liaised may be
supported without any modifications to OSPF.  As discussed in earlier
emails, it can be implemented solely through the import/export of
information described in Appendix I of G.7715.

 - The draft IA also recognizes namespace issues exist between Router ID
and the IP Address that messages are sent to (ITU calls this the RC PC
SCN address).  This issue is also discussed in
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-addressing.

 

Given that:

-          CCAMP has a milestone to publish an ASON routing solution by
Nov 2006, 

-          CCAMP didn't have at the time this was liaised (doesn't have
today?) a working group document, and

-          the draft IA has been successfully implemented by more than a
dozen vendors and interop-tested many times,

I would expect that we should be looking at this as experience/text that
could be leveraged...  "Running code..." and all that...

 

Regards,

 

Jonathan Sadler

 

________________________________

From: Ong, Lyndon [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 2:33 PM
To: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS; Sadler, Jonathan B.; [e-mail]
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

 

Hi Deborah,

 

Here's what I would say is in and not in the OIF document:

 

-- G.7715, G.7715.1 and the IETF eval and solutions draft all identify a
need to support hierarchical

routing areas for ASON, I am perplexed as to why this seems to be viewed
as a new feature.

 

-- the document does not specify the domain of usage and leaves this to
the carrier.  This is no different

from G.7715.1 and IETF drafts that do not explicitly state whether they
are used for intra- or inter-domain

interfaces.

 

-- GMPLS OSPF does not support a 1:N or N:1 relationship between routing
controller and transport

node, hence extensions are felt to be required - and are proposed in the
eval solutions draft. The 

conclusions are no different.

 

-- the document does not in fact define any standard extensions to the
protocols, and points to future work

in IETF and ITU to provide these.  Therefore I cannot understand where
you say "new extensions to

OSPF are specified" and "none...align with the CCAMP's GMPLS-ASON work".


 

I think we're experiencing a significant miscommunication...

 

Cheers,

 

Lyndon

 

________________________________

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 12:15 PM
To: Sadler, Jonathan B.; [e-mail]
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

Hi Jonathan, (and Lyndon),

 

Thanks to both of you for responding.

 

"Significant" was referencing:

 

- supports a (new) hierarchical OSPF model

- supports inter-domain (inter-carrier) OSPF (not supported by today's
OSPF)

- identifies namespace issues with GMPLS OSPF which do not exist, and
proposes extensions to "fix"

- new extensions to OSPF are specified

- none of the proposed extensions align with CCAMP's GMPLS-ASON work

 

Did you have another adjective to suggest? We were thinking
"significant" was rather soft considering the above. Though if it's just
ITU-speak differences, why does the OIF liaison state it reflects
several years of work including testing? Any insight (alignment mapping
to CCAMP's work) which you or Lyndon can provide would be helpful. The
divergence is baffling to us.

 

Deborah

 

 

________________________________

From: Sadler, Jonathan B. [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 11:34 AM
To: Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS; [e-mail]
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

Hi Deborah and Adrian,

 

I haven't seen much discussion of the OIF E-NNI Routing document on the
CCAMP list.  Can you tell me what parts of the document are "significant
modifications to the operation of OSPF"?

 

Thanks,

 

Jonathan Sadler

 

________________________________

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 9:38 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

 

Hi,

 

We had a communication from OIF on their OSPF ENNI specification. You
can see the original files on http://www.olddog.co.uk/ccamp.htm
<http://www.olddog.co.uk/ccamp.htm> . Having assembled comments from
several people and our discussions in Montreal, we have put together the
following response.

 

Please comment on the list in the next week.

 

Thanks,

Adrian and Deborah

 

= = = = = = = = = =

Dear Jim,

 

We thank you for sending us the OIF ENNI document in response to our
request. While we appreciate the document being provided for
information, it is concerning that this document has not been previously
shared with CCAMP or the OSPF WG considering the document contains
significant modifications to the operation of OSPF and reflects OIF work
over the last several years. CCAMP has been working on GMPLS ASON for
several years and our Design Teams include OIF participants. Even though
a reply was not requested, we are replying, as we strongly recommend
that the document not be published for public information in its current
form.

 

Of most concern to CCAMP is that it is not aligned with RFC 4258
(Requirements for Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS)
Routing for the Automatically Switched Optical Network (ASON)) or the
to-be-published:
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-ason-routing-ev
al-03.txt. Considering notable OIF participants are authors of both
these IETF documents (and the same participants are contributors and the
Editor for the OIF document), the non-alignment is perplexing.
Considering the IETF document is ready for publication, we suggest in
the interests of time, that you align your document with the IETF
document. If any questions on the interpretation of the IETF's work, we
recommend that you either utilize the CCAMP mail exploder or send a
communication.

 

Specific comments include:

1.      What is the intent of this document? Will it be published as an
Implementation Agreement (IA)?
The title indicates it will be an Implementation Agreement on GMPLS OSPF
extensions, but the main body of the document is a list of issues with
GMPLS OSPF. Further, your communication to us stated the document was
requirements on and use of OSPF-TE at the ENNI. These three views seem
to be inconsistent.

2.      The list of changes from the previous version (listed under the
Table of Contents) includes "removed "intra-carrier" limitation" and the
inclusion of Figure 1 showing the OSPF ENNI for use between vendor
domains and between carrier domains. GMPLS OSPF-TE already supports
inter-vendor operations. 
The IETF's GMPLS ASON routing focus has been on the use of a link-state
based protocol to support a hierarchical routing architecture (G.7715.1)
within a carrier's domain. Requirements for using a link state protocol
as an inter-domain protocol between carriers are significantly
different. We strongly disagree if you intend to publish this document
as an inter-carrier OSPF ENNI Implementation Agreement claiming
alignment with IETF RFCs without review (or agreement) by any of the
IETF Working Groups.

3.      Section 4.1/Table 1 and the statement under the table
identifying issues with GMPLS identifier namespaces are not correct.
GMPLS identifier namespaces do meet ASON requirements for namespace
separation of the transport plane and control plane (Section 5.2 and
5.3/Evaluation). Perhaps you are confusing OSPF and GMPLS OSPF? As you
also identified in your liaison that the key area needing review was the
support of independence of functional component to physical location,
this appears to be a key area of misunderstanding on GMPLS. We recommend
reviewing RFC3945 (GMPLS Architecture) to understand that the key
architecture difference between GMPLS and MPLS is the decoupling of the
transport plane and control plane. Additionally, RFC4394, RFC4397, and
RFC4258, provide a mapping to ITU terminology which may be helpful
reading.

 

We request an additional round of communication of this document to the
IETF before approval to allow us to work with you to produce convergence
between OIF and IETF work which, we believe, will be in the best
interests of the industry.

 

Best regards,

Adrian Farrel and Deborah Brungard,

CCAMP co-chairs

============================================================
The information contained in this message may be privileged
and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee
or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction,
dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by replying to the message and
deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs
============================================================
============================================================
The information contained in this message may be privileged
and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee
or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction,
dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by replying to the message and
deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs
============================================================
============================================================
The information contained in this message may be privileged
and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee
or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction,
dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by replying to the message and
deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs
============================================================
============================================================
The information contained in this message may be privileged
and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee
or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction,
dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by replying to the message and
deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs
============================================================