Rolf,
are you saying that if we just liaise RFC1958 to the ITU-T they will
stop developing a competing OAM for MPLS?
Sometimes the life is simple, though I doubt that it is this simple.
My 2c's is that this a good draft and should be progressed.
/Lao
On 2011-10-04 11:16, Rolf Winter wrote:
Hi,
I think Brian makes an excellent point here. RFC 1958 already contains exactly
the same basic message (just with far less (unnecessary) words). I don't think
we need this document as it doesn't really add anything to what RFC 1958 says.
I'll provide a more detailed review later.
Best,
Rolf
NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3
6BL | Registered in England 2832014
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Freitag, 30. September 2011 21:48
To: huubatwork(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call:<draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-
01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM)
to Informational RFC
Huub,
On 2011-09-30 20:19, Huub van Helvoort wrote:
All,
Section 1,1 also contains the text:
[RFC5317] includes the analysis that "it is technically feasible
that
the existing MPLS architecture can be extended to meet the
requirements of a Transport profile, and that the architecture
allows
for a single OAM technology for LSPs, PWs, and a deeply nested
network."
This is a quote from slide 113 in the PDF version of RFC5317 and
should
be read in realtion to the statement on slide 12 of the same RFC:
"This presentation is a collection of assumptions, discussion points
and decisions that the combined group has had during the months of
March and April, 2008
This represents the *agreed upon starting point* for the technical
analysis of the T-MPLS requirements from the ITU-T and the MPLS
architecture to meet those requirements"
So the quoted text in the draft is one of the assumptions.
The fact that there are currently *two* OAM mechanisms (and not a
*single*), i.e. one for PW and one for LSP proves that the assumption
was not correct.
I'm sorry, I don't understand your logic. You seem to be saying that
the fact that two solutions have been designed proves that the
assumption
that a single solution is possible was false. That doesn't follow at
all. The engineering profession has a long history of producing
multiple
solutions where a single one was possible, and this seems to be just
another such case.
This isn't news. I quote from RFC 1958 (June 1996):
" 3.2 If there are several ways of doing the same thing, choose one.
If a previous design, in the Internet context or elsewhere, has
successfully solved the same problem, choose the same solution
unless
there is a good technical reason not to. Duplication of the same
protocol functionality should be avoided as far as possible, without
of course using this argument to reject improvements."
Brian
_______________________________________________
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
--
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf