Re: [PWE3] ATM Forum liaison

Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk> Mon, 11 March 2002 20:20 UTC

Received: by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) id PAA21811 for ietf-outbound.10@ietf.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:20:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) id PAA21530 for ietf-mainout; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:11:42 -0500 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: ietf.org: majordom set sender to owner-ietf@ietf.org using -f
Received: from prue.eim.surrey.ac.uk (IDENT:exim@prue.eim.surrey.ac.uk [131.227.76.5]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA21526; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:11:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from phaestos.ee.surrey.ac.uk ([131.227.88.14] ident=eep1lw) by prue.eim.surrey.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #4) id 16kW8e-0004IU-00; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:11:20 +0000
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:11:12 +0000
From: Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
X-X-Sender: eep1lw@phaestos.ee.surrey.ac.uk
Reply-To: Lloyd Wood <L.Wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>
To: Chip Sharp <chsharp@cisco.com>
cc: harford@atmware.com, pwe3@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [PWE3] ATM Forum liaison
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020311135731.025ef298@dogwood.cisco.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.43.0203111939460.3370-100000@phaestos.ee.surrey.ac.uk>
Organization: speaking for none
X-url: http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/
X-no-archive: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Scanner: exiscan *16kW8e-0004IU-00*k7mHiI2Uwr.* (SECM, UniS)
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: ietf@ietf.org

On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Chip Sharp wrote:

> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:21:21 -0500
> From: Chip Sharp <chsharp@cisco.com>
> To: harford@atmware.com
> Cc: pwe3@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] ATM Forum liaison
>
> At 11:39 AM 3/11/2002, harford@atmware.com wrote:
>
> >Since the IETF has no official liaison process, I want to make sure that
> >PWE3 members are aware of the most recent communication from the ATM Forum.
> > Below is a liaison that was sent to your Chairs and Area Directors.
> >
> >The ATM Forum has added an optional sequence number and length field to our
> >frame format, effectively aligning it with the Fischer draft being
> >considered within PWE3. I would urge members who value a single industry
> >standard to promote Fischer as the most practical way to achieve this.  I
> >also understand that a frame format compatible with Fischer (but not
> >Brayley) is in the current draft document being considered by ITU.
>
> Actually there are two frame formats with *equal status* (Under
> Investigation) under consideration by ITU Study Group 13 Question 5.
> I believe one is compatible with Fischer (contained in what is
> called a draft document) and one is compatible with Brayley (in the
> living list).
>
> Therefore, it looks like the ATM Forum may be the only standards
> group not considering both frame formats.

It's all in the delicate phrasing, isn't it? nicely worded, Jim.
thanks, Chip.

In the light of recent discussion of ITU-T and misrepresentation,
unintentional or otherwise, of the work of standards bodies (the
recent 'Re: Last Call: IETF and ITU-T Collaboration Guidelines to
Informational' thread on ietf@ietf.org) I have to ask:

is anyone here an official ITU-T representative for ITU SG-13 who can
provide an accurate precis endorsed by the ITU?


On 5 March, Scott Bradner said in that thread:

$ the reason behind this at all is that we have had cases of people
$ representing to IETF WGs that they know what is going on in an ITU-T
$ SG but it turned out that in some cases they did not know and thus
$ mislead the listeners about what was going on in the ITU-T - this
$ was meant as a way for the ITU-T management to say, in effect "he
$ knows what is going on" - this was not intended to mean that any
$ such designated person carries any more weight in IETF WG
$ deliberations than does any other individual  - but as Pete points
$ out, it can be useful to actually know what another group is or is not doing.

...as input to decisions based on pure technical merit?

In the interim, I would urge you to ignore Jim's urgings.

L.

is not in the ATM Forum, having read through the directory that includes
http://www.atmforum.com/pages/advantages/self_declaration.html


> Chip
>
> >Jim Harford
> >ATM Forum AIC Chair
> >
> >>  -----Original Message-----
> >> From:   Townsend, Richard L, JR (Rick)
> >> Sent:   Tuesday, February 12, 2002 4:49 PM
> >> To:     'danny@tcb.net'; 'luca@level3.net'; 'sob@harvard.edu';
> >> 'mankin@isi.edu'
> >> Subject:     Liaison to IETF PWE# from the ATM Forum
> >>
> >> Liaison to IETF
> >>
> >> To:     Danny McPherson, Co-chair of PWE3 WG    danny@tcb.net
> >>    Luca Martini, Co-chair of PWE3 WG  luca@level3.net
> >>    Scott Bradner, Area Director  sob@harvard.edu
> >>    Allison Mankin, Area Director mankin@isi.edu
> >>
> >> For:  IETF PWE3 WG
> >> Subject:  ATM-MPLS Interworking
> >>
> >> The ATM Forum has recently started work on version 2 of our ATM-MPLS-ATM
> >> Network Interworking specification.  Please note that the initial version
> >> of this specification, af-aic-0178.000, is publicly available at the ATM
> >> Forum's web site at <http://atmforum.com>.
> >>
> >> In version 2, we have added a length and sequence number field to our
> >> frame format, effectively aligning our frame format with
> >> draft-fischer-pwe3-atm-service-02 that you are considering within PWE3.
> >>
> >> Any comments you have will be welcome.
> >>
> >> The next meeting of the ATM Forum is April 21-26 in Prague, Czech
> >> Republic.
> >>
> >>    Rick Townsend
> >>    Chair of the Technical Committee, ATM Forum
> >>    rltownsend@lucent.com
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

<L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>