Sometimes when two worlds come together, you don't get common standards right
away. For the SONET/SDH example, it has been pointed out that starting from
digital voice, we had different regions of the world choosing A-law or mu-law
encoding, then 24-channel vs 30-channel PDH hierarchies. SONET and SDH evolved
originally as optimized transport for the 24-channel and 30-channel
hierarchies, but we were able to push them into common physical layer
interfaces for the various bit-rates, and today what we call SDH is really a
superset of the two multiplexing hierarchies, so the same box can be sold
anywhere in the world and can be configured to support the hierarchy of the
local network. When "data friendly" features were added to SONET/SDH (VCAT,
GFP, LCAS), these were defined once and not in multiple regional variants. When
we finally reached OTN, we were able to agree to develop a single, global
standard from the start.
For MPLS-TP, we have the coming together of the transport world with the
Internet world. We have succeeded in driving together many aspects of this
technology, but we shouldn't be too surprised that we can't get down to one
variant in the very first try at bringing these together.
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