Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ip-optical-framework-00.txt

From: Kireeti Kompella <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 04:06:10 -0800 (PST)

> The OIF's use is hardly compelling. Curtis makes a good
> observation that the word "open" isn't particularly descriptive
> in this context.

I would go further: "open" is a misnomer.  As Jonathan pointed out,
the "open" model looks closed from another point of view.  Note that
the terms "peer", "overlay" and "integrated" all describe topological
relationships between network elements, but "open" instead describes
services offered.  Non sequitur.

> Are you *sure* you aren't really talking about
> a form of overlay model (as clarified)? The word "overlay" (with
> or without "signaled" as Curtis suggested) seems to be more
> descriptive (naturally, IMHO).

IMHO, here's what is going on: the term "overlay" may appear to some to
have bad connotations; the term "open" has good connotations.  So,
while it is nice to have descriptive names, let's call this model X
(and, if desired, call the peer model Y) to lose the connotational
baggage, and get on with the real task of defining the models by
property and context of usefulness.

Krishna, you make the comment:

> It is unclear at this time which of these models will prevail.

I don't know that any one model will "prevail".  Furthermore, by
designing a routing and signaling architecture that encompasses all
models, it won't matter which prevails, and will also allow for a
smoother transition from one to another.  I would say our real
mission here is to arrive at such an architecture ....

Kireeti.

---

From: "Krishna Bala" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:06:17 -0500

Kireeti,
1. I disagree with your comment about the "open" architecture. 
Again, the intent of this model was to create an architectural/topological
framework which would allow the carriage of multiple services in 
a multivendor optical network. 
2. Yes, the term "overlay" is not preceived positively by network
operators (most of them at least)
3. Model X or Model Y ... what does it matter? Here I am in complete
agreement with you. Yes, our challange is create a framework in which
we can support any evolutionary path imaginable for IP over optics
or "anything else" over optics. I think this is a very achievable 
goal. 

Krishna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kireeti Kompella [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 7:06 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ip-optical-framework-00.txt
> 
>