RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI

"Drake, John E" <John.E.Drake2@boeing.com> Wed, 26 July 2006 16:28 UTC

Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5mEz-0001zN-Mz for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:28:09 -0400
Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5mEv-0008Kv-79 for ccamp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:28:09 -0400
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org>) id 1G5m7Z-000JfQ-CY for ccamp-data@psg.com; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:20:29 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.1.1
Received: from [130.76.96.56] (helo=stl-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <John.E.Drake2@boeing.com>) id 1G5m7W-000Jex-DX; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:20:26 +0000
Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (blv-av-01.boeing.com [192.42.227.216]) by stl-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/TEST_SMTPIN) with ESMTP id k6QGKFkx004954; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 11:20:16 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from XCH-SWBH-04.sw.nos.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.11.3/8.11.3/MBS-AV-LDAP-01) with ESMTP id k6QGKEs20134; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-SW-42.sw.nos.boeing.com ([192.79.11.43]) by XCH-SWBH-04.sw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:20:11 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 09:20:10 -0700
Message-ID: <626FC7C6A97381468FB872072AB5DDC8C2DC2F@XCH-SW-42.sw.nos.boeing.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI
Thread-Index: AcawiIQcvKU0ScNMSAa6Hq8hRT8aOAAOiXagAAMJY+A=
From: "Drake, John E" <John.E.Drake2@boeing.com>
To: "Ong, Lyndon" <Lyong@Ciena.com>, Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jul 2006 16:20:11.0542 (UTC) FILETIME=[5E6AE360:01C6B0CF]
Sender: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 21bf7a2f1643ae0bf20c1e010766eb78

Lyndon,

Google "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a
rigged demo."

Thanks,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ong, Lyndon [mailto:Lyong@Ciena.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 9:10 AM
> To: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Drake, John E; owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI
> 
> 
> Hi Dimitri,
> 
> Understood, I was just taken aback by the idea that the 
> demonstration was somehow "rigged" (by little elves?)
> 
> BTW it's not entirely clear what the testing process is to go 
> from Proposed to
> Draft, the reports vary considerably in detail.   Some just list the
> number
> of implementations, without any test results.
> 
> Cheers,   
> 
> Lyndon
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be 
> [mailto:Dimitri.Papadimitriou@alcatel.be] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:53 AM
> To: Ong, Lyndon
> Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Drake, John E; owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI
> 
> lyndon - i don't think the issue is exactly there ;-)
> 
> the point is that having repeated demos and argue on its 
> significance by the number and the affiliation of the 
> participants does not make it necessarily a proof of validity 
> both in terms of implementation and for what it related to 
> the protocol arch./interoperability
> - this is the point i think john wants to make -
> 
> so your question: how does IETF "validate" then ... well the 
> answer by using the RFC2026 standard process - the reports on 
> implementation following that process can be found at 
> <http://www.ietf.org/IESG/implementation.html>
> 
> for what it relates to MPLS/GMPLS there is addditionally an 
> initial launching process for starting the effort: 
> the so-called MPLS/GMPLS change process - which is more 
> clearly formalizing current practices when a new effort is started -
> 
> hope this answer your question
> - dimitri.
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Ong, Lyndon" <Lyong@Ciena.com>
> Sent by: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> 26/07/2006 00:22
>  
>         To:     "Drake, John E" <John.E.Drake2@boeing.com>, 
> <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>
>         cc: 
>         Subject:        RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI
> 
> 
> I confess it was all rigged, John.  Little midgets were inside the 
> equipment plugging
> fibers here and there and typing RSVP messages into mini keypads.
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf 
> Of Drake, John E
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 3:08 PM
> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI
> 
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ong, Lyndon [mailto:Lyong@Ciena.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:39 PM
> To: Drake, John E; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI
> 
> Hi John,
>  
> If you wish to discuss how the tests were carried out, you 
> can talk to the 
> 
> 7 major carriers that provided lab sites and the 13 router and switch 
> vendors that participated
> in the 2005 demo. 
>  
> JD:  Just as I suspected 
>  
> In what sense does IETF use the term interoperability test? 
>  
> JD:  You know, the stuff required to advance to proposed standard
>  
> Is there an RFC on this? 
>  
> JD:  I'm sure.
>  
> I was unaware that IETF ran interoperability tests. 
>  
> JD:  I didn't say it did, and I don't know if it does. 
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Lyndon
> 
> From: owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-ccamp@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf 
> Of Drake, John E
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:28 PM
> To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI
> 
>  Snipped
>  
>  Regarding Topic 2:
>  
>  
> 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? 
>  
> JD:  I noticed that Jonathan has put in this plug several 
> times.  I am 
> wondering whether these events are truly interoperability 
> tests, in the 
> sense that the IETF uses the term, or rather rigged demos?  I seem to 
> remember that the OIF characterized itself as a marketing 
> organization.
> 
> 
>  
>