ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [mpls] R: FW: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

2011-10-05 13:06:56
Alessandro, Stewart and all,

I concur with Stewart: please write a draft detailing your major technical 
concerns.

I'd like to add a quote from Malcolm's presentation at the IETF meeting in 
Prague:

        "Differences <between the solution approved by the IETF and its ITU-T 
sponsored         alternatives - Sasha> are close to invisible at the level of 
the requirements in RFC5860".


Just to remind you that RFC 5680 is the MPLS-TP OAM requirements document.


Malcolm has also said:

        "Many of the issues only become apparent when the protocol and 
equipment behavior is    explored"

but, AFAIK, these issues have never been explicitly brought for the 
consideration. 

My 2c,
     Sasha


-----Original Message-----
From: mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Stewart Bryant
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 12:24 PM
To: D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [mpls] R: FW: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-
considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for
MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

On 05/10/2011 10:38, D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo wrote:
 > major unresolved technical concerns

Alessandro

Please can I suggest that you write an internet draft detailing
these "major unresolved technical concerns" so that we
can all understand them.

Such a draft needs to be technical, and describe the actions
that the network operator is unable to perform, or the fault
cases that they are unable to diagnose using the OAM defined
in the IETF RFCs, or late stage WG drafts.

Alternatively if you are referring to a bug in the MPLS-TP
OAM protocols, you need to tell the community what it is.

I believe that this request has been made  a number of
times, in various forums, and, as far as I know, no document
has yet been produced.

An argument of the form "you must standardize what I want"
will not fly. What is needed is a very clear technical definition
of the issue(s).

When we have the "major unresolved technical concerns"
on the table, we will be in a position to determine the best
disposition of those issues.

Stewart







--
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html


_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls


This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information 
which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have 
received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, 
and then delete the original and all copies thereof.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>