日期: 2011年10月5日,周三,下午5:38
Dear all,
I do not support.
Basically I think it is superfluous dedicate an RFC to
state it is better having one standard instead of two ones
or many... for sure the lower are the variants the better is
for the industry (one is the ideal).
When two or more standards or de-facto standards exist it
is because the problem they solve is not exactly the same,
the way they solve the problem is optimized for different
environments/boundary conditions (more efficient, more
effective, etc). Therefore a single solution does not
necessarily meet the different market requirements.
It is fundamental to enter into the problem's details
before making consideration about the best way to proceed
(one solution, two solutions, multiple solutions) whilst the
document clearly declares it does not want to make any
technical evaluations.
After more than three years of debates within the IETF and
major unresolved technical concerns risen from some
transport operators, the existence of this draft is by
itself the sure sign that MPLS-TP OAM is a case where a
single solution has not be found to meet all the different
market requirements. Otherwise, why are we still discussing
about it....?
Therefore we must be realistic and the lessons learned from
the past should guide our decisions: if a solution cannot be
found for satisfying all the requirements it is better to
have two standards and let the market decide how to exploit
them. Are we really sure the cost(many) / benefit
(none) analysis done in section 7.5 is realistic?
Best regards,
Alessandro
------------------------------------------------------------------
Telecom Italia
Alessandro D'Alessandro
Transport Innovation
Via Reiss Romoli, 274 - 10148 Torino
phone: +39 011 228 5887
mobile: +39 335 766 9607
fax: +39 06 418 639 07
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
Per conto di Adrian Farrel
Inviato: lunedì 26 settembre 2011 23:58
A: mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Oggetto: [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-