The MPLS WG Archive

["Andrew Smith" <ah_smith@pacbell.net>]

If:
(a) none of the existing WGs want the work item
(b) there are willing and able people to do the work
(c) it doesn't overlap with other work
(d) it is a legitimate, missing piece of what seems to be a popular
(proposed) standard

then find a friendly AD (doesn't seem to matter which Area), hold a BoF, if
anyone shows up for the BoF ask to form a WG and go from there. Don't let
the unwillingness of existing WGs (or their chairs or their ADs) stop a
piece of work that people, both vendors and consumers, want to see
standardised. Fran and Harsha, you know the process - just get the work
done.

My 2c.

Andrew

P.S. There's no such thing as "policy" - it's just network management. It
would be irresponsible for the IESG to hold back this legitimate piece of
standards' work.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rap@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-rap@ops.ietf.org]On Behalf Of
Hegde, Shriharsha
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 9:38 AM
To: 'Ritu Chadha'; franr@pfn.com; Olivier.Dugeon@rd.francetelecom.com;
mpls@UU.NET; te-wg@ops.ietf.org; sganguly@carrier9.com
Cc: policy@raleigh.ibm.com; rap@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: MPLS and COPS


Just like Diffserv MIB and Diffserv PIB are in Diffserv working group,
I support the notion of having a TE PIB in parallel to TE MIB in
TE WG. I believe PIB approach is the right direction to take for
policy/administrative control over MPLS/TE.

harsha

PS: I have not followed the TE WG discussion which took place months
ago about the ADs deciding that policy should not be in TEWG charter.




-----Original Message-----
From: Ritu Chadha [mailto:chadha@mailee.research.telcordia.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 12:50 PM
To: franr@pfn.com; Olivier.Dugeon@rd.francetelecom.com; mpls@UU.NET;
te-wg@ops.ietf.org; sganguly@carrier9.com
Cc: chadha@mailee.research.telcordia.com; policy@raleigh.ibm.com
Subject: RE: MPLS and COPS


Well, I can't comment on that except to say that I'm completely in
agreement with you. You should direct your concerns to the ADs.
Randy?
Ritu

>From: "Sukanta Ganguly" <sganguly@carrier9.com>
>To: "Ritu Chadha" <chadha@research.telcordia.com>, <franr@pfn.com>,
<Olivier.Dugeon@rd.francetelecom.com>, <mpls@UU.NET>, <te-wg@ops.ietf.org>
>Subject: RE: MPLS and COPS
>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 11:50:35 -0700
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>Importance: Normal
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
>X-Loop-Detect: 1
>
>Ritu,
>  I see what you are saying and I did read some of them emails but it is
>needed. I mean I don't get it (:-)). Why not have a way for TE to take in
>some higher layer knowledge to perform smart engineering. There is a lot of
>knowledge that can be conveyed to the lower layers from the applications
>sitting on top.
>
>
>Sukanta Ganguly
>Senior Architect
>Carrier9 Networks
>Phone (408)-746-0400 x 119
>FAx (408)-730-9441
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ritu Chadha [mailto:chadha@mailee.research.telcordia.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 11:16 AM
>To: franr@pfn.com; Olivier.Dugeon@rd.francetelecom.com; mpls@UU.NET;
>te-wg@ops.ietf.org; sganguly@carrier9.com
>Cc: chadha@mailee.research.telcordia.com
>Subject: RE: MPLS and COPS
>
>
>Been there, tried that :-).
>
>This was discussed at some length a few months ago on the tewg mailing
list.
>The ADs did not see policy as an area that fitted within the TE WG charter
>at that time.
>
>Ritu
>
>>From: "Sukanta Ganguly" <sganguly@carrier9.com>
>>To: "Fran Reichmeyer" <franr@pfn.com>, "'Olivier Dugeon '"
><Olivier.Dugeon@rd.francetelecom.com>, <mpls@UU.NET>, <te-wg@ops.ietf.org>
>>Subject: RE: MPLS and COPS
>>Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:51:26 -0700
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>>Importance: Normal
>>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
>>X-Loop-Detect: 1
>>
>>Maybe the TE group should be the place for this. Clearly policies should
be
>>an important traffic engineering operation.
>>
>>SG
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-te-wg@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-te-wg@ops.ietf.org]On
>>Behalf Of Fran Reichmeyer
>>Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 6:54 AM
>>To: 'Olivier Dugeon '; 'mpls@UU.NET '; 'te-wg@ops.ietf.org '
>>Subject: RE: MPLS and COPS
>>
>>
>>After several attempts at introducing this to the wg, it
>>was decided that policy is out of scope for the MPLS wg at this
>>time.
>>-Fran
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Olivier Dugeon
>>To: mpls@UU.NET; te-wg@ops.ietf.org
>>Sent: 6/12/01 4:28 AM
>>Subject: MPLS and COPS
>>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>In a context of QoS control in a multi-domain and multi-technology
>>network, we would use COPS as the control protocol rather than SNMP.
>>COPS need a "Policy rules Information Base" to work. A such PIB is
>>available for DiffServ for example. I would to know if somebody work on
>>a PIB for MPLS.
>>
>>- Is there some case study inside the WG or it is out the scope/out of
>>date ?
>>- Is there a new version of the draft "draft-franr-mpls-cops-00.txt" ?
>>
>>Thank's a lot
>>
>>Olivier Dugeon
>>--
>> FTR&D/DAC/CPN
>> Technopole Anticipa     | mailto:Olivier.Dugeon@francetelecom.com
>> 2, Avenue Pierre Marzin | Phone:  +(33) 2 96 05 28 80
>> F-22307 LANNION         | Fax:    +(33) 2 96 05 18 52
>>
>

============================================================================
=
Ritu Chadha
Director
Service Management Research
Telcordia Technologies 				(973) 829-4869 (voice)
MCC 1A-216R                                     (973) 829-5889 (fax)
445 South Street
chadha@research.telcordia.com
Morristown NJ 07960.
============================================================================
=