I have reservations about the readiness of this I-D.
The technical content looks ok, but the process by which it has been arrived at
gives me pause.
It is a crucial document for MPLS-TP, perhaps the most important after the
requirements ones, like, say, RFC3411 for SNMP.
This Last Call is on -11 which shows substantial changes from -10 (eg in S3.4)
and, despite assiduously tracking the list, I am unsure where these changes have
come from. I do not see them discussed, I do not see any consensus declared for
(or against) them nor is there any explanation in the I-D itself.
The topics covered include some that have provoked considerable debate, over the
past two years, involving hundreds of e-mails, including a sequence where
several exceeded one Megabyte in size each. Yet, again, I have not seen any
consensus declared on the list on most of these topics.
The topics I have in mind include; what is MPLS-TP? Is it a layer network, in
the G.805/G.800 sense, a set of such layers or what? (and saying it is a Profile
has no meaning until the word 'Profile' has been defined in this context). S3.1
of this I-D, like its predecessor, talks variously of 'MPLS-TP network', MPLS-TP
layer network' and 'MPLS-TP server' which I find less than clear.
How does MPLS-TP relate to MPLS? My sense is that it is a subset of a superset,
a superset because MPLS lacks, eg, adequate OAM, a subset to make it as simple
as possible but not simpler. (Again, simply saying 'Profile' is really only
tautology.
Are features in or out? ECMP, NNI, PHP, multiple QoS? I think that some of
these are still being debated as the Working Group Last Call proceeds in
parallel with this Last Call.
S-bit; how many allowed in the stack; I think that the consensus is one, but
then what does it mean, and what happens to the meaning it would have had when
there were more than one?
MIP; where and how many?
It is not that a view could not be formed on some of these issues from reading
the I-D, but where does that view come from? Not, as far as I can see, from any
IETF WG list.
Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: "The IESG" <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc: <mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 4:33 PM
Subject: [mpls] Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework (A Framework forMPLS in
Transport Networks) to Informational RFC
The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks '
<draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-11.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 2010-04-21. 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.
The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-11.txt
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=18027&rf
c_flag=0
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf