|
Re: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt>(The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) toInformational RFC
2011-10-06 07:14:58
Feng,
I'm not sure how to parse this, but personal attacks on ietf mailing
should at least be substantiated with evidence.
Like been said before we discuss thing over and over and come to an
working group or IETF consensus call, and then the discussion starts
over again.
/Loa
On 2011-10-05 13:58, HUANG Feng F wrote:
Loa,
YES, but there are only someone (not organization-that's a individual
draft and MEAD team-not ietf mpls group or ietf group, which has been
disbanded by themselves one years ago) make decision to done a single
solution!
B.R.
Feng
-----Original Message-----
From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu]
Sent: 2011年10月5日 19:53
To: HUANG Feng F
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) toInformational RFC
Feng,
there were only one organization invbolved in the decision to develop two OAM
solutions!
/Loa
On 2011-10-05 13:29, HUANG Feng F wrote:
Dear Loa,
Life is not simple, mpls-tp is joint developed by IETF and ITU-T, so it
is complicated, the decision should be done by two orgnizations.
There are many errors about in this draft as many, for example, Rolf,
Huub, Malcolm, Tom Petch and I, point out in emails, it is a bad draft, it
should be stop.
B.R.
Feng
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf
Of Loa Andersson
Sent: 2011年10月5日 18:48
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; Rolf Winter
Subject: Re: Last
Call:<draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt>(The Reasons
for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) toInformational RFC
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
|
|