Hi All You may recall some discussions on this list back in March about the ITU-T developing a competing MPLS standard to the IETF: http://list.waikato.ac.nz/pipermail/nznog/2011-March/017460.html This is still an issue and I recently received the following email from an overseas contact that I thought it would be useful to share:
ITU-T SG15 is proposing to approve an MPLS Recommendation at its next meeting (December 2011). The history as to why this situation has come about is itself contentious. However were this approval to proceed, there is considerable belief in industry that the creation of a second standard, in addition to the IETF’s MPLS RFC, would be confusing and detrimental to industry.
The approval of the recommendation is following the ITU-T’s traditional approvals process. This process requires Member States to give the ITU-T the authority to approve the Recommendation, in order for the ITU-T SG15 meeting to be allowed to approve it. [name removed] is trying to assess whether there is sufficient support by Member States to stop authority being granted to the ITU T SG15 meeting and that would remove approval of the Recommendation from the meeting.
One reason for withholding such support is to give the IETF time to complete its activities. Since the ITU has started its approval’s process, the IETF has been working to develop RFC;s that cover the same issues. Should these activities in the IETF be successful then the need for having the ITU-T Recommendation can be questioned, with the intention of avoiding having 2 standards.
If you would like to see the NZG support this action to prevent the ITU-T from developing a competing standard to the IETF then please speak up and I will pass on the feedback, or alternatively please contact the relevant person from MED directly - Frank March
SG15 ignored the standing agreement between the ITU and the IETF on control of the MPLS standard. Having looked at both, in depth, I'd suggest that the IETF spec is more resilient and scales better than the ITU spec. Regardless, the market is unlikely to want/need both and if both exist then vendors are going to include both, inducing code bloat, unused code paths, increased development and support costs which will be passed on to the consumers. YMMV of course. /bill On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 03:55:20PM +1200, Jay Daley wrote:
Hi All
You may recall some discussions on this list back in March about the ITU-T developing a competing MPLS standard to the IETF:
http://list.waikato.ac.nz/pipermail/nznog/2011-March/017460.html
This is still an issue and I recently received the following email from an overseas contact that I thought it would be useful to share:
ITU-T SG15 is proposing to approve an MPLS Recommendation at its next meeting (December 2011). The history as to why this situation has come about is itself contentious. However were this approval to proceed, there is considerable belief in industry that the creation of a second standard, in addition to the IETFb
At last years ITU Plenipotentiary meeting the ITU committed by resolution to working with the organisations they name, ICANN, RIRs, IETF, W3C specifically on Internet Protocol standards. I think we should demand ITU abide by the rules they have made. Keith On 30/08/2011 4:03 p.m., bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
SG15 ignored the standing agreement between the ITU and the IETF on control of the MPLS standard. Having looked at both, in depth, I'd suggest that the IETF spec is more resilient and scales better than the ITU spec. Regardless, the market is unlikely to want/need both and if both exist then vendors are going to include both, inducing code bloat, unused code paths, increased development and support costs which will be passed on to the consumers.
YMMV of course.
/bill
On 30/08/11 13:10 , Keith Davidson wrote:
At last years ITU Plenipotentiary meeting the ITU committed by resolution to working with the organisations they name, ICANN, RIRs, IETF, W3C specifically on Internet Protocol standards. I think we should demand ITU abide by the rules they have made.
I agree.
Jay, I am told that a public intimation from NZ of opposition to the draft ITU-T recommendation *in advance* of the December SG15 meeting would help the determination of certain much larger countries to vote against. So, the more people here who say that they prefer a single solution, and prefer that ITU-T sticks to its prior agreement to leave this solution to the IETF, the better. That's what I think of course, but hearing it from ISPs is more important. Regards Brian Carpenter On 2011-08-30 15:55, Jay Daley wrote:
Hi All
You may recall some discussions on this list back in March about the ITU-T developing a competing MPLS standard to the IETF:
http://list.waikato.ac.nz/pipermail/nznog/2011-March/017460.html
This is still an issue and I recently received the following email from an overseas contact that I thought it would be useful to share:
ITU-T SG15 is proposing to approve an MPLS Recommendation at its next meeting (December 2011). The history as to why this situation has come about is itself contentious. However were this approval to proceed, there is considerable belief in industry that the creation of a second standard, in addition to the IETF’s MPLS RFC, would be confusing and detrimental to industry.
The approval of the recommendation is following the ITU-T’s traditional approvals process. This process requires Member States to give the ITU-T the authority to approve the Recommendation, in order for the ITU-T SG15 meeting to be allowed to approve it. [name removed] is trying to assess whether there is sufficient support by Member States to stop authority being granted to the ITU T SG15 meeting and that would remove approval of the Recommendation from the meeting.
One reason for withholding such support is to give the IETF time to complete its activities. Since the ITU has started its approval’s process, the IETF has been working to develop RFC;s that cover the same issues. Should these activities in the IETF be successful then the need for having the ITU-T Recommendation can be questioned, with the intention of avoiding having 2 standards.
If you would like to see the NZG support this action to prevent the ITU-T from developing a competing standard to the IETF then please speak up and I will pass on the feedback, or alternatively please contact the relevant person from MED directly - Frank March
regards Jay
participants (5)
-
Andy Linton -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Brian E Carpenter -
Jay Daley -
Keith Davidson