ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-08.txt> (An Overview of the OAM Tool Set for MPLS based Transport Networks) to Informational RFC

2012-03-22 09:45:07
Hello,  

i) I support this proposal.     

Apart from the text section mentioned below, the different versions of the 
draft (at least the initial ones) have presented, from the available options 
and IMHO, Y.1731 as the readiest/closest most to requirements. On the other 
hand, this section looks to want being a memorandum about decisions regarding 
OAM, which didn't follow that option. So, it's important not to put ITU-T or 
MEAD in subject for that.        


ii) " [RFC 6375]        
      augments that set of identifiers to include identifier information        
      in a format used by the ITU-T"    
Is the intended reference [MPLS TP ITU Idents], 
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers? 6375's related to packet loss and delay 
measurements, not to identifiers. 

Regards,        
Rui     


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Huub van Helvoort
Sent: quarta-feira, 21 de Março de 2012 22:49
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-08.txt> (An Overview 
of the OAM Tool Set for MPLS based Transport Networks) to Informational RFC

IESG,

I do *NOT* support this draft unless the following changes are made:

The first paragraph of section 8 Acknowledgements has to be removed:
It is an attempt to capture history, but lacks accuracy.
Removal does not impact the technical information in the draft; the tools have 
evolved significantly from the strawman tools proposed in Stockholm; some 
members of the MEAD team (I am one of them) do not consider that an agreement 
on this proposal was reached.

I also request the removal of my name from this acknowledgements section since 
I do not support this tool set, neither as an individual nor as ITU-T Q10 
rapporteur. The latter is implied by mentioning my name in the same sentence as 
a WG chair and ADs.

Regards, Huub.

=============
The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching 
WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'An Overview of the OAM Tool Set for MPLS based Transport Networks'
   <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-08.txt>  as an Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits 
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the 
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2012-03-23. Exceptionally, comments 
may 
be sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org instead. In either case, please retain 
the 
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

    This document provides an overview of the OAM toolset for MPLS based
    Transport Networks.  The toolset consists of a comprehensive set of
    fault management and performance monitoring capabilities (operating
    in the data-plane) which are appropriate for transport networks as
    required in RFC 5860 and support the network and services at
    different nested levels.  This overview includes a brief recap of
    MPLS-TP OAM requirements and functions, and of generic mechanisms
    created in the MPLS data plane to allow the OAM packets run in-band
    and share their fate with data packets.  The protocol definitions for
    each of the MPLS-TP OAM tools are defined in separate documents (RFCs
    or Working Group drafts) which are referenced by this document.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis/ballot
/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce