Hi Erminio:
Two of the three document editors were present at SG15 plenary in February
where the comments originated. The revised meeting schedule resulted in a day
spent going through the document with the editors. IMO there were lots of
discussion and legitimate issues with the document identified and corrected so
it was a useful session. The liaison of same was in many ways *after the fact*.
Cheers
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
erminio(_dot_)ottone_69(_at_)libero(_dot_)it
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 10:26 AM
To: loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu; Rui Costa
Cc: mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; IETF-Announce
Subject: [mpls] R: Re: 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
Version -04 of the document was published June 28th.
The publication request for draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi was sent
June 29th.
So when the WG LC to confirm the LC comment resolution has been launched?
The proto write-up says:
It has also passed a working roup call to verify that LC comments
were correctly with minor comments.
It also says:
The comments has been
carefully discussed between the authors and people making the
comments and
has been resolved.
But it seems that some comments have not been discussed with the authors of the
comments. When ITU-T Q10/15 has been involved in discussing its comments?
----Messaggio originale----
Da: loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu
Data: 6-lug-2011 17.44
A: "Rui Costa"<RCosta(_at_)ptinovacao(_dot_)pt>
Cc: "mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"<mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>,
"ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>,
"IETF-
Announce"<ietf-announce(_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
All,
Since someone has commented about the process used for resolving
questions on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi I am supplying some details
below.
The history of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi working group review
process is:
On February 3rd 2011 the working group last call was issued on version
-03
This was copied to the the Ad Hoc Team List
and liaised to SG15 also on February 3rd
This working group last call ended om Feb 28
On Feb 28 we also received a liaison with comments from SG15
The authors compiled a list of all comments received as part the MPLS
working group last call; these comments - and the intended resolution
- is included in the meeting minutes from the Prague meeting:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/slides/mpls-9.pdf
During the IETF meeting in Prague, we agreed with the BFD working
group to do a separate working group last callfor the BFD working
group
The (BFD) working group last call was started on March 30th and ran for
13 days. The last call ended on April 11th.
The authors have since worked hard to resolve comments, some issue
has been brought to the working group mailing list for resolution.
Version -04 of the document was published June 28th.
The publication request for draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi was sent
June 29th.
The AD review resulted in a "New ID needed" due to mostly editorial
comments. Version -05 was published on June 29 and the IETF last call
started as soon as the new ID was avaialbe.
The current list of Last Call Comments resoltion is also avaiable at:
http://www.pi.nu/~loa/cc-cv-rdi-Last-Call-Comments.xls
The list of issues that the authors kept very carefully, shows
without doubt
that no comments been ignored.
Loa
mpls wg document shepherd
On 2011-07-05 00:02, Rui Costa wrote:
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
--
Loa Andersson email:
loa(_dot_)andersson(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu
Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13
+46 767 72 92 13
_______________________________________________
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