ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [mpls] 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 22:02:45
I do not support this draft.    

a) Its "SONET and SDH" section is wrong. (Please refer to H. van Helvoort's, A. 
Reid's, M. Betts's comments.)   

b) It doesn't really add anything to RFC 1958. (Please refer to R. Winter's 
comments.) In RFC1958:      
"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".        
We didn't choose the elsewhere designs (ETH, T-MPLS; please check deployment 
numbers in other emails on this subject) on the grounds of backwards 
compatibility, but didn't choose the internet context design either, once the 
chosen IETF designs won't be backwards compatible with existing ones.   
(Please refer to the Jul2011 discussion regarding cc-cv-rdi draft)      

c) To the question "which requirement stated in the RFCs are not satisfied by 
the singe OAM solution defined in IETF?": 
For instance, RFC5860 2.2.3: " The protocol solution(s) developed to perform 
this function      
   proactively MUST also apply to [...] point-to-point unidirectional LSPs, and 
point-to-       
   multipoint LSPs."    
(Please refer f.i. to the Jul2011 discussion regarding cc-cv-rdi draft) 

d) I do agree with the supporters of this draft on "we are going in circles 
again". There are enough people supporting both solutions. Those supporting the 
ITU-T approach don't preclude the IETF's, although not subscribing it. Those 
supporting the IETF's do preclude ITU-T's. I don't understand the goal and time 
waste. As a final client, i don't understand why people want to preclude me of 
a valuable option.      

Regards,        
Rui





-----Original Message-----      
From: mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: segunda-feira, 26 de Setembro de 2011 22:58
To: mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [mpls] 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

MPLS Working Group,

Please be aware of the IETF last call as shown below. The document was presented
for publication as an individual RFC with IETF consensus and AD sponsorship.

This draft is clearly close and relevant to the work you do, but after
discussing with the chairs I came to the conclusion that it does not comment on
the technical or process decisions of the MPLS working groups, and it does not
attempt to make any technical evaluations or definitions within the scope of the
MPLS working group. It is more of a philosophical analysis of the way the IETF
approaches the "two solutions" problem with special reference to MPLS-TP OAM.

Thus, I am accepting the document as AD Sponsored rather than running it through
the MPLS working group. My reasoning is that the working group has got plenty to
do working on technical issues without being diverted into wider IETF
philosophy.

As an AD Sponsored I-D it is subject to a four week IETF last call. That is
plenty of opportunity for everyone to comment and express their views. Please
send your comments to the IETF mailing list as described below, or (in
exceptional circumstances) direct to the IESG.

Thanks,
Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-announce-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-announce-
bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of The IESG
Sent: 26 September 2011 20:43
To: IETF-Announce 
Subject: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The
Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM'
  <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> as an Informational
RFC

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 2011-10-24. 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

   The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is a profile of MPLS technology
   for use in transport network deployments. That is, MPLS-TP is a set
   of functions and features selected from the wider MPLS toolset and
   applied in a consistent way to meet the needs and requirements of
   operators of packet transport networks.

   During the process of development of the profile, additions to the
   MPLS toolset have been made to ensure that the tools available met
   the requirements. These additions were motivated by MPLS-TP, but form
   part of the wider MPLS toolset such that any of them could be used in
   any MPLS deployment.

   One major set of additions provides enhanced support for Operations,
   Administration, and Maintenance (OAM). This enables fault management
   and performance monitoring to the level needed in a transport
   network. Many solutions and protocol extensions have been proposed to
   address these OAM requirements, and this document sets out the
   reasons for selecting a single, coherent set of solutions for
   standardization.


The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

_______________________________________________
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

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