[Chapter-delegates] Statement relating to today’s ITU-T SG15 MPLS development decision

[Franck Martin]

Franck Martin 
http://www.avonsys.com/ 
http://www.facebook.com/Avonsys 
http://www.linkedin.com/company/avonsys 
twitter: FranckMartin Avonsys 

Check your domain reputation: http://gurl.im/b69d4o 
Application Monitoring: http://gurl.im/4d39Gu 


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fred Baker" <fred at cisco.com>
> To: "Christian de Larrinaga" <cdel at firsthand.net>
> Cc: "ISOC Chapter Delegates" <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org>, "Russ Housley" <housley at vigilsec.com>
> Sent: Saturday, 26 February, 2011 12:51:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [Chapter-delegates] Statement relating to today’s ITU-T SG15 MPLS development decision
> On Feb 26, 2011, at 6:23 AM, Christian de Larrinaga wrote:
> > Fred I agree that greater complexity will increase cost for vendors.
> > But why would a user pay more for something that works worse?

> 
> That was my point about complexity.
> 
> > The ISOC / IETF press release can easily be interpreted as a
> > territorial spat between standards bodies rather than a matter of
> > content substance. It is all about process and how ITU-T has broken
> > its agreement. All stuff that seasoned politico's can shrug a so
> > what?
> 
> There is certainly an element of that. The ITU was very offended when
> the IETF developed enum; we had to explain to them that we weren't
> reinventing the telephone number ("E.164 number"); we were finding a
> way to put theirs into our DNS. They took umbrage when we developed
> SIP, because they saw it as competitive with H.310, H.32x, etc. We
> pointed out that those various technologies were largely similar,
> required a lot of carrier infrastructure, and were different for each
> technology, while SIP was technology-independent. 3GPP decided to take
> SIP as a "friendly amendment" and use a common signaling protocol. And
> SIP was built on concepts from our other technology, HTTP; a different
> way to do a similar thing, but done in a very different way. 3GPP
> decided to take SIP as a "friendly amendment" and use a common
> signaling protocol. Yes, there is some of that kind of turf
> discussion.
> 
> In this case, I'll argue that we literally have two standards that do
> the same thing. And more importantly, it is a place in which the IETF
> and the ITU sat down and agreed and a way to sort out the issue.
> Breaking an agreement is a little different than "this came out of
> research, and it's something you might actually want to think about."
> 
> BTW, a side-point to the clean-slate folks, who say "we are doing it
> over here because we have lost our ability to influence industry". SIP
> came out of research and fundamentally changed industry. Solve a
> problem industry is wrestling with, and you'll find that industry is
> listening.
> 

What you are pointing here, is that Internet Standards are not made in ITU anymore. IETF "re-invented" some of the ITU standards to make them suitable for the Internet. I'm really curious to know which standard that does not come from either the IETF or IEEE is used on the Internet today.

An issue arising, is that the standard track from IETF is becoming more and more difficult and lengthy, which is starting to make other organization standard track more attractive. Do we have this issue here?

Otherwise I would say good luck to the ITU version of this standard.