Erminio,
I do not think the history is relevant for this specific discussion...
Also I find it inappropriate to give statements with no justifications
behind.
You say: "the solution in this draft is useless for many MPLS-TP
deployments.". in order to seriously consider your comment, you have to
show why it is useless and which requirements are not satisfied.
Otherwise you cannot expect anyone to refer to your point.
Best regards,
Nurit
P.s. did you mean that the document is useless to available non-standard
deployments, e.g. T-MPLS?
-----Original Message-----
From: mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
ext erminio(_dot_)ottone_69(_at_)libero(_dot_)it
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 8:34 PM
To: RCosta(_at_)ptinovacao(_dot_)pt; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; IETF-Announce
Cc: mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [mpls] R: Re: LastCall: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt>
(Proactive Connectivity Verification,Continuity Check and Remote Defect
indicationfor MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard
The way this draft has been developed is a bit strange.
The poll for its adoption as a WG document was halted by the MPLS WG
chair
because "it is not possible to judge consensus":
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg04502.html
The lack of consensus was motivated by serious technical concerns raised
by
several transport experts during the poll.
Nevertheless the MPLS WG chair decided to adopt the draft as a WG
document:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg04512.html
After several WG revisions and WG LCs, the technical issues have not
been
resolved.
Several service providers regarded this draft as not meeting their
transport
networks' needs.
This is a true statement: the solution in this draft is useless for many
MPLS-
TP deployments.
----Messaggio originale----
Da: RCosta(_at_)ptinovacao(_dot_)pt
Data: 5-lug-2011 0.02
A: "ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>,
"IETF-Announce"<ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc: "mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"<mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Ogg: Re: [mpls] Last Call:
<draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt>
(Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and
Remote Defect
indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard
IMHO and for the record:
ITU-T comments regarding this draft haven't been discussed with ITU-T
but
were simply ignored. No LS describing these comments' resolution was
sent.
Several service providers regarded this draft as not meeting their
transport
networks' needs.
[The v03 draft was published in Feb and went to WG LC.
The v04 draft addressing WG LC comments was published on the 28th June
(same
date as the proto write-up).
When was the WG LC launched, to verify LC comments resolution?]
Regards,
Rui
-----Original Message-----
From: mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
The
IESG
Sent: quinta-feira, 30 de Junho de 2011 14:47
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt>
(Proactive
Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect indication
for
MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard
The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching
WG
(mpls) to consider the following document:
- 'Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote
Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile'
<draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt> as a Proposed Standard
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 2011-07-14. 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
Continuity Check, Proactive Connectivity Verification and Remote
Defect Indication functionalities are required for MPLS-TP OAM.
Continuity Check monitors the integrity of the continuity of the
label switched path for any loss of continuity defect. Connectivity
verification monitors the integrity of the routing of the label
switched path between sink and source for any connectivity issues.
Remote defect indication enables an End Point to report, to its
associated End Point, a fault or defect condition that it detects on
a pseudo wire, label switched path or Section.
This document specifies methods for proactive continuity check,
continuity verification, and remote defect indication for MPLS-TP
label switched paths, pseudo wires and Sections using Bidirectional
Forwarding Detection.
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
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