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. > > > >
- Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Ong, Lyndon
- Re: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Ong, Lyndon
- Re: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Tomohiro Otani
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Ong, Lyndon
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Sadler, Jonathan B.
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Ong, Lyndon
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Sadler, Jonathan B.
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Ong, Lyndon
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Ong, Lyndon
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Ong, Lyndon
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Ong, Lyndon
- Re: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Richard Rabbat
- Addressing draft [Was: Proposed response to OIF o… Adrian Farrel
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Sadler, Jonathan B.
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Ong, Lyndon
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- Alignment of OIF routing requirements with CCAMP … Adrian Farrel
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Sadler, Jonathan B.
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Sadler, Jonathan B.
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Sadler, Jonathan B.
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Drake, John E
- Re: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Adrian Farrel
- An IETF / OIF liaison relationship Was: (Re: Prop… Loa Andersson
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Drake, John E
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Ong, Lyndon
- shared mesh restoration - e2e recovery signaling … Payam Torab
- Re: shared mesh restoration - e2e recovery signal… Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: shared mesh restoration - e2e recovery signal… Payam Torab
- RE: shared mesh restoration - e2e recovery signal… Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: shared mesh restoration - e2e recovery signal… Payam Torab
- RE: shared mesh restoration - e2e recovery signal… Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Drake, John E
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Ong, Lyndon
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Dimitri.Papadimitriou
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Ong, Lyndon
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Drake, John E
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Ong, Lyndon
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI MEURIC Julien RD-CORE-LAN
- RE: Proposed response to OIF on OSPF ENNI Drake, John E