Subject: AW: Internet Draft Submission: Orchestrally Conducted Traffic

From: Hummel Heinrich <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 10:04:05 +0100

Curtis wrote:

> I believe there was no comment because there was no interest.
> Generally people say nothing rather than expressing no interest but
> since Hummel has asked what happenned I'll acknowledge having read the
> draft and when it was sent to the mailing list and having reread it
> just now and having no interest in pursuing it.
	[Hummel Heinrich]:
	IMHO OCT entirely complies with the intentions of the TE-WG.
	OCT tries to statistical multiplex the entire traffic onto the
entire network; will
	say: it does MACRO-multiplexing. A sentence from the  TE framework
document:
   "Likewise, we shall refer to the traffic engineering
   schemes that deal with network performance optimization at the
   systems level as macro-TE and the schemes that optimize at the
	individual resource level as micro-TE."
	 
 Also, TE framework:"The traffic engineering mechanisms and tools can be
implemented in a distributed or
	   centralized fashion" . Yes,OCT represents the centralized
fashion.

Again from the TE-fw section 2.4:"(2) A collection of online and possibly
off-line tools and mechanisms
       for measurement, characterization, modeling, and control
       of Internet traffic and control over the placement and allocation
       of network resources, as well as control over the mapping or
       distribution of traffic onto the infrastructure."
 
	OCT operates online, does measure (bitrates), does characterize
(differentiate traffic streams by priorities), does model (the traffic not
only as it is
	 but even as to steer it according to TE-goals), does control the
mapping or distribution of traffic onto the infrastructure.

	IMHO this is part of the interest of the TE-WG.

	Curtis wrote: 
	 If there is a specific combination
	of these ideas that Seimens is trying to patent, then the IETF
should
	avoid producing any standard utilizing that specific combination
based
	on the combination being encumberred.

	[Hummel Heinrich]  
	In my draft I am mentioning that by establishing communication
channels
	between all ingress nodes and the TEC all information exchange can
be done completely
	in a proprietary fashion, which means only the ingress nodes and the
TEC have to
	come from the same company. It is entirely up to the IETF-WGs
whether or not
	to specify any message, TLV or codepoint with respect to OCT.

	BTW,the name of my company is Siemens, not Seimens. 

	Regards,
	Heinrich Hummel

	Siemens AG
	[email-masked]

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 11:22:22 -0500

In message <DB74A4E69C7CD311B740006008136E0706C7B2@MCHH213E>, Hummel Heinrich w
> 	individual resource level as micro-TE."

Hummel,

The wording in the charter indicates that the WG is interested in
solving a specific problem.  That does not mean that the WG has
expressed any interest at all in the specific solution to that problem
that you have proposed.

Curtis