RE: Optical Link Interface

[John Drake <[e-mail]>]

As an aside, the LMP-WDM and NTIP authors did have several phone conferences
prior to the last IETF, and the NTIP authors indicated that folding the
contents of LMP-WDM draft into the NTIP draft would be an acceptable
solution to them.  Presumably this would allow it to be called NTIP.

 Since then, they've also indicated that the LMP-WDM protocol is fine, but
it can't have the letters LMP in its name.

Thanks,

John 

-----Original Message-----
From: Andre Fredette [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 11:11 AM
To: 'Osama Aboul-Magd'
Cc: Jonathan Lang; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Optical Link Interface


Osama,

[Note: I tried to trim this note down to the key arguments so that it is
easier to follow.]

My main argument (and I believe it is shared by the rest of the LMP-WDM
co-authors) is as follows:
1. LMP exists.
2. LMP solves most of the OLI problems, 
3. Therefore, let's use LMP.

Osama's main argument is:
1. I don't think LMP should exist.
2. Therefore let's create a new protocol.

Given that the members of the working group have decided that LMP will be
developed, I don't think Osama's argument is reasonable.

At 10:41 AM 7/25/2001 -0700, Jonathan Lang wrote: 

        [Osama] what is the limitation here? Are you saying having a simple
design is a limitation? Not everything has to be complex. 

[Jonathan]  Other DWDM vendors are not happy with the master-slave model.
Also, the claim that NTIP is simple is an explicit assertion and you seem to
be trying to make an implicit assertion that LMP is complex. 


On the master-slave issue.  There is clearly some information that the line
system does not need.  For example, I don't expect the Link Characteristics
need to be advertised from OXC to OLS.  I think this works fine within the
context of LMP.

You have made claims of complexity, but have never been able to back them up
with fact.





Given the CR-LDP fiasco in MPLS, it was clearly stated by the ADs and 

Working Group chairs in Minnesota that only one protocol will progress in 

the IETF. 

        

[Osama] I don't understand why CR-LDP and RSVP-TE have been brought to this
discussion. This is a completely different situation. LMP hasn't seen the
wide deployment that RSVP-TE has. The example is inadequate. 



[Jonathan] CR-LDP and RSVP-TE were both being developed prior to either one
of them being widely deployed.  The effort involved in developing 2
protocols concurrently to do the same thing is widely perceived as being
counter productive. 


Given the choice between specifying and implementing two protocols that do
basically the same thing and one, I think the choice should be clear.

Andre