Hi,
So far We did not see any justification for two competing solutions for
OAM in MPLS-TP. We also did not see what is really missing in the IETF
solution and why if something is missing it cannot be resolved in the
context of a single solution. IT is not clear why alternative solution
is needed. If enhancement is needed, I am sure the IETF would be happy
to enhance the solution.
There is no justification to confuse the industry with two competing
solutions that are defined in two different organizations and may evolve
in different and inconsistent way and will not allow two MPLS
implementations (ITU and IETF) to co-exist in the same network.
What is clear is that unfortunately this is NOT a technical discussion!
The industry blessed the agreement between the ITU-T and the IETF and
considered it as such a good opportunity for the Industry, incorporating
together the expertise of both ITU and IETF organizations, avoiding
duplication and inconsistencies.
The determination of an alternative solution in the ITU-T for OAM is in
contrary to the collaborative agreement between the ITU-T and the IETF.
The IETF solution is progressing. The solution will satisfy the
transport requirements as were defined together with the ITU-T. Complete
interoperability and architectural soundness with MPLS/GMPLS will be
guaranteed.
The ITU-T SG15 OAM solution will enter the Consultation period where
only Governments can respond. The document must be unopposed! The future
of the document is uncertain and the process can be very long!
Instead of putting so much energy in this political arguments and in the
attempt to fragment the Industry, we could positively work together to
ensure that the solution we define fully and appropriately satisfies the
requirements. It is really a pity!
Best regards,
Nurit
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Worley, Dale R (Dale) [mailto:dworley(_at_)avaya(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 5:10 PM
To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); Huub van Helvoort; Brian E
Carpenter
Cc: IETF
Subject: RE: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
Given the stiff formality of many of the messages on this topic, and the
absence of
description of who did what and why, I suspect the problem is some sort
of a split
regarding what approach (or which particular solution) should be taken
in OAM for
MPLS. And that the two factions were probably backed by different
commercial interests.
And that one faction had the upper hand within the IETF and the other
faction had
the upper hand within the ITU. The former committee was to provide the
ITU faction
with an official or de-facto veto power over the IETF output, so that
the ITU faction's
agreement would be required for "IETF consensus". Eventually, the IETF
faction got sick
of the fact that they weren't going to convert the ITU faction to their
solution, so the
veto arrangement was summarily terminated from the IETF side, and now
the IETF faction
can reach "consensus".
So we will get two standards, one from the IETF and one from the ITU,
and the winner
will be determined in the marketplace. "The great thing about standards
is that there
are so many to choose from!"
Dale
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf