Tom,
Many thanks for your comments. I have copied Loa who may want to respond to the
procedural comments.
Please see responses below for responses to technical/document content issues.
Best regards
Matthew, Stewart and Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Tom.Petch
Sent: 17 April 2010 19:03
To: ietf
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework (A
Framework forMPLS in Transport Networks) to Informational RFC
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 majority of these changes are a consequence of ITU-T review comments and
were discussed on the open calls on tuesdays, as advertised on the MPLS-TP
list. Note that in normal IETF procedure more of this discussion would indeed
have taken place on the list. However, we needed to operate in a way that
allowed the ITU-T to communicate with us in a way that they felt comfortable.
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.
We have used the term 'Profile' in the context that it has been used in RFC5654
and RFC5317. That is, a set of functional building blocks to meet the
requirements as set out in RFC5654.
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.
This is addressed in section 3.2.
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.
I believe that all of these are explicitly addressed in the document.
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?
We believe that the current draft reflects the consensus as dicussed in various
open calls, WG sessions, and on the mailing list over the last two years.
MIP; where and how many?
That is dicussed as a part of the MPLS-TP OAM Framewokr draft rather than the
overall framework.
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.
The majority of the discussion occurred on the MPLS-TP list rather than the
MPLS 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.tx
t
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=vie
w_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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf