headers
Khosravi, Hormuzd M | 6 Dec 2003 02:03
Picon
Favicon

RE: Fw: more changes to the base draft

Hi Avri

I had one question on this..
Technically speaking GRMP seems quite different from GSMP v3
to me. How could you possibly merge these protocols ?
I must be missing something here.

Thanks
Hormuzd

-----Original Message-----
From: gsmp-admin <at> ietf.org [mailto:gsmp-admin <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Avri
Doria
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 3:55 AM
To: gsmp <at> ietf.org
Subject: Re: Fw: [GSMP] more changes to the base draft

Hi Weiming,

comments inline.

On onsdag, nov 26, 2003, at 17:52 Asia/Seoul, Wang,Weiming wrote:

>
>  Hi Avri,
>
>  I'm writing to seek the possiblity in GSMP base header to add 
> following items:
>
>  1. A proirity flag to indicate the processing priority for the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 668 comments |
headers
Avri Doria | 6 Dec 2003 02:50
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Fw: more changes to the base draft


On lördag, dec 6, 2003, at 10:03 Asia/Seoul, Khosravi, Hormuzd M wrote:

> Hi Avri
>
> I had one question on this..
> Technically speaking GRMP seems quite different from GSMP v3
> to me. How could you possibly merge these protocols ?
> I must be missing something here.
>
>
> Thanks
> Hormuzd
>
>

The structure of the two protocols is very similar in that GRMP uses 
similar protocol protocol mechanisms, in fact GRMP imports much of its 
protocol structure from GSMP almost completely.  What is different, 
primary, is the way the information is expressed.  So yes, it is true 
that the messages for setting state for GMPLS objects is different then 
the way GRMP sets state for the LFBs, but this can be accommodated by 
introducing a new message type, or two, for LFBs.  I am also assuming, 
though I have not worked it out yet, that much of the technology 
specific changes that have been made to support various optical 
technologies could also be used.

As I indicated in my first message to Weiming, we would need to do some 
work to see if the merge is really feasible, but on the basis of my 
initial review, I don't think it would be impossible.  My initial
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
wmwang | 11 Dec 2003 05:53
Picon

Re: Fw: more changes to the base draft

Hi Hormuzd,

Although from the perspective of low, fine grain and implementation level, 
ForCES has been defined 
in the way that seems quite different from GSMP,  the overall architecture is 
still the same, which is, they
are all based on a control and forwarding separation and open programmable 
architecture. Therefore, 
the idea GRMP is based is that it may not be an unwise approach to aboriginally 
consider and leave some 
space for possible future integration of the techniques that catually belongs 
to the same technical category and have quite the 
same application destination ( an open programmable Network Element). Of course 
there may be
problems to actually make such an integration currently, but  we just think  it 
means to make it a thinking point in advance
and have it go as a gradual process. 

Thank you for the attention.

Weiming

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Khosravi, Hormuzd M" <hormuzd.m.khosravi <at> intel.com>
To: "Avri Doria" <avri <at> acm.org>; <gsmp <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 9:03 AM
Subject: RE: Fw: [GSMP] more changes to the base draft

Hi Avri
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Wijnen, Bert (Bert | 11 Dec 2003 17:58
Picon
Favicon

RE: GSMP WG Status

GSMP WG members,

I think this WG should be closed:

- The below message was posted to this WG list Nov 9th.
- We are now 1 month further, I have seen virtually NO reaction to it
- Alex and I have spoken with WG chairs at IETF with the implied
  message that I am ready to shut down the WG. 
- Your WG chairs defended VERY SERIOUS why the WG should continue
  and that WG pariticipation would IMPROVE imminently (such was
  promised back in the Vienna IETF also).
- But I do not see any of that happening.
- I do see that Avri delivered on the revision of the base spec
  (albeit with a note that yet more changes are needed)
- It cause two comments, but basically resulted in discussion of
  GRMP.
- Other authors have not lived up to any promises
- I see no volunteering for the docs that have no editor/author.

I will be speaking with rest of IESG to close the WG.
I cannot support the claim that this WG is actually a Working Group.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kenneth Sundell [mailto:ksundell <at> nortelnetworks.com]
> Sent: zondag 9 november 2003 18:02
> To: gsmp
> Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Alex Zinin; avri
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
avri | 11 Dec 2003 23:22

Re: RE: GSMP WG Status


On torsdag, dec 11, 2003, at 17:58 Europe/Zurich, Wijnen, Bert (Bert) 
wrote:

> GSMP WG members,
>
> I think this WG should be closed:

As you and state below, I strongly disagree.

>
> - The below message was posted to this WG list Nov 9th.
> - We are now 1 month further, I have seen virtually NO reaction to it
> - Alex and I have spoken with WG chairs at IETF with the implied
>   message that I am ready to shut down the WG.
> - Your WG chairs defended VERY SERIOUS why the WG should continue
>   and that WG pariticipation would IMPROVE imminently (such was
>   promised back in the Vienna IETF also).

And there was improvement after Vienna, just not as much as you wanted.
There has been traffic on the list, and just becasue it was about GRMP 
is no reason to discount the conversation.

> - But I do not see any of that happening.
> - I do see that Avri delivered on the revision of the base spec
>   (albeit with a note that yet more changes are needed)

The guarantee was that the next rev would go out with the layer changes 
included.  not that the document would be finished in November.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Wataru Imajuku | 12 Dec 2003 01:02
Picon

RE: GSMP WG Status

Hi, All

  I also strongly disagree with closing this WG.

  I think current  GSMP specifications lacks management feature of
switching hardwares, especially, if you think adaptation of GSMP to
  legacy-switches such as SDH-XC.

  Still, we have lot of work to do.

W. Imajuku <at> NTT

>>GSMP WG members,
>>
>>I think this WG should be closed:
>
>As you and state below, I strongly disagree.
>
>>
>>- The below message was posted to this WG list Nov 9th.
>>- We are now 1 month further, I have seen virtually NO reaction to it
>>- Alex and I have spoken with WG chairs at IETF with the implied
>>   message that I am ready to shut down the WG.
>>- Your WG chairs defended VERY SERIOUS why the WG should continue
>>   and that WG pariticipation would IMPROVE imminently (such was
>>   promised back in the Vienna IETF also).
>
>And there was improvement after Vienna, just not as much as you wanted.
>There has been traffic on the list, and just becasue it was about GRMP is 
>no reason to discount the conversation.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Wijnen, Bert (Bert | 12 Dec 2003 01:09
Picon
Favicon

RE: RE: GSMP WG Status

And can you tell me when was the last time that you contributed anyting to
GSMP WG? I see no email postings from you to the WG list since mid-2002

You may be a new member who will now be posting great review comments
in the next few days. In that case I appologize for the above.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wataru Imajuku [mailto:imajuku.wataru <at> lab.ntt.co.jp]
> Sent: vrijdag 12 december 2003 1:02
> To: gsmp
> Subject: [GSMP] RE: GSMP WG Status
> 
> 
> Hi, All
> 
>   I also strongly disagree with closing this WG.
> 
>   I think current  GSMP specifications lacks management feature of
> switching hardwares, especially, if you think adaptation of GSMP to
>   legacy-switches such as SDH-XC.
> 
>   Still, we have lot of work to do.
> 
> W. Imajuku <at> NTT
> 
> >>GSMP WG members,
> >>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Wataru Imajuku | 12 Dec 2003 02:05
Picon

Adding functionality to support Restoration Functionality

Hi, All and Mr. Bert

 >And can you tell me when was the last time that you contributed anyting to
 >GSMP WG? I see no email postings from you to the WG list since mid-2002

 >You may be a new member who will now be posting great review comments
i>n the next few days. In that case I appologize for the above.

  Yes, I'm new commer entered this mailing list just two days ago.

  I believe GSMP can brought tremendous chance for NW operators to upgrade
existing NW elements toward unified GMPLS controlplane.
  In such network, the counter action to link or nodal failure is one of 
most important issue.
  This is the reason that the one of hot issue in CCAMP-WG be the support 
of restoration functionality
in RSVP/CR-LDP.

  My first technical comments is for draft-ietf-gsmp-v3-base-spec.

* 6.1 Port Management Message

   I think this message should contain Port Type Specific Data Block
as can be see in  Port Configuration Data in order to support legacy switches.
  In such Port Type specific Data Block, some kind of functionality to set 
admin-state up/down,
PathTrace information for the switches. In the case of SDH-XC, the 
information of J0 Byte
would be set. And, the information of OTU/ODU-TTI would be set in the case 
of OTN-XC.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Wang,Weiming | 12 Dec 2003 04:58
Picon

Fw: RE: GSMP WG Status


I also strongly disagree to close the group, especially at the moment. It's like the 
phone line is cut while we are actually talking about something via the phone. 
I think what we are talking about GRMP on this  list is highly related to GSMPv3 base spec., isn't it?
 
 Regards,
Weiming
 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen <at> lucent.com>
> To: "Kenneth Sundell" <ksundell <at> nortelnetworks.com>; "avri" <avri <at> psg.com>; "gsmp" <gsmp <at> ietf.org>
> Cc: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen <at> lucent.com>; "Alex Zinin" <zinin <at> psg.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:58 AM
> Subject: [GSMP] RE: GSMP WG Status
> 
> 
> > GSMP WG members,
> > 
> > I think this WG should be closed:
> > 
> > - The below message was posted to this WG list Nov 9th.
> > - We are now 1 month further, I have seen virtually NO reaction to it
> > - Alex and I have spoken with WG chairs at IETF with the implied
> >   message that I am ready to shut down the WG. 
> > - Your WG chairs defended VERY SERIOUS why the WG should continue
> >   and that WG pariticipation would IMPROVE imminently (such was
> >   promised back in the Vienna IETF also).
> > - But I do not see any of that happening.
> > - I do see that Avri delivered on the revision of the base spec
> >   (albeit with a note that yet more changes are needed)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Wijnen, Bert (Bert | 12 Dec 2003 09:26
Picon
Favicon

RE: RE: GSMP WG Status


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wang,Weiming [mailto:wmwang <at> mail.hzic.edu.cn]
> Sent: vrijdag 12 december 2003 4:59
> To: gsmp <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Fw: [GSMP] RE: GSMP WG Status
> 
> I also strongly disagree to close the group, especially at 
> the moment. It's like the phone line is cut while we are 
> actually talking about something via the phone. 
> I think what we are talking about GRMP on this  list is 
> highly related to GSMPv3 base spec., isn't it?
>  
Why would "closing the WG" be similar to "cutting the phone line"??
The mailing list can/will continue to exist.  So you can keep
talking/emailing (as little as has been done till now, or as much 
as you all think/promise you are going to be doing).

And once the (small) set of people on this list comes to closure 
on their documents, they can still submit them as (individual) 
contributions via RFC-Editor. We will consider them.

Bert
>  Regards,
> Weiming
Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |

Gmane