Subject: RE: Obsoleting RFC 1264?

From: "Sadler, Jonathan B." <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 16:01:07 -0500

Curtis,

Just a point of clarification -- IS-IS (ISO 10589), ES-IS (ISO 9542),
and IDRP (ISO 10747) are the work of ISO, not ITU.  I'm not trying to
defend them, just want to make certain that the bazooka is pointed at
the right group before the trigger is engaged...

Jonathan Sadler

-----Original Message-----
From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 4:01 PM
To: Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALABS
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Obsoleting RFC 1264? 

In message
<[email-masked]>
"Ash, Gerald R \(Jerry\), ALABS" writes:
>  
>  
> With all due respect, are all the ITU protocols, e.g. in
> http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/50/vote.html in the junk category, to remain
> forever in the dog pound?
>  
> Regards,
> Jerry

Of course not.  ITU is where many link layer protocols used in
telecommunication are defined.  Its when they get above layer 2 that
too often the result is junk.

Even at layer-1 and layer-2 not every ITU protocol is very good.  In
some cases its what we have to live with.

Sometimes things need a little fixing like the SONET scrambling that
repeated every 128 bits if you remember when Internet providers first
started using POS.  Too often 10% of the defined protocol proves
useful in the long run.  For example carriers have been moving away
from SONET protection for many years now.  Advances in 10GbE and
emergence of 40GbE and 100GbE may mean the end of SONET except as a
legacy service (much as FR and ATM are today).  The majority of use of
OC192 is OC192c as a link layer for POS and interest in OC768 seems
limited.  We'll have to wait and see.

Then there are things like X.25 and ISDN.

On the bright side above layer-2 is the widespread acceptance of X.509
PKE for SSL key distribution.  Again a fraction of the protocol is
used and not for its original purpose much as is the case in ISO 10589
(ISIS if I have the number right).

Not every IETF spec is any good either, though at layer-3 IETF has a
much better track record of defining usable protocols.  IETF has a
small problem in that the RFC collection is already cluttered with
4,000 going on 5,000 documents.  Many critical protocols are at the PS
level where it is already very difficult for newcomers and even the
moderately experienced to distinguish junk from essential documents.

Fortunately OSPF is at full standard and BGP is now at draft standard
but does that mean the ISIS work can be ignored.  Definitely not.
These are just examples.  There are plenty of PS documents that are
essential and many that simply don't work well.  Gradually we declare
the latter to be historic but in some cases they should have never
made PS.

Curtis

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion
============================================================
The information contained in this message may be privileged
and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee
or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction,
dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by replying to the message and
deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs
============================================================

_______________________________________________
routing-discussion mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/routing-discussion

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 18:15:00 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>
> the right group before the trigger is engaged...

Jonathon,

I didn't mean to imply that ISIS is ITU work, only cite it as an
example of a protocol where a limited subset is used and not for the
original purpose of the protocol.  ISIS is simply the classic example
of this since native CLNP went extinct shortly after GOSIP yet ISIS
(or better to say dual-ISIS, something based on ISO10589) is still
used to carry IP routing information.

Curtis