ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2011-10-09 08:37:36
Russ,

You may not be fully aware of the context of the statement in RFC 5317:

As the co-chair of the JTW and co-editor of the JWT report I must point 
out the context of the text that you have quoted:

First, the text is on slide 113, slide 12 states:
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

Second:  The discussion point that drove the text on slide 113 was the 
consideration that PWs and LSPs may have different OAM.  The reality is 
that the solution standardized uses different encapsulations for the PW 
(no GAL) and LSP (uses the GAL).

Regards,

Malcolm





Russ Housley <housley(_at_)vigilsec(_dot_)com> 
Sent by: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
08/10/2011 11:02 AM

To
IETF <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
cc

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






I support publication of this draft, although the SONET discussion could 
be discarded.  Also, I would like to see a reference to RFC 5921 in the 
introduction.

RFC 5317 calls for one, and only one, protocol solution.  At least that is 
how I read JWT Agreement.  The most relevant text seems to be in Section 
9:

  They stated that in their view, 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.

Since the publication of RFC 5317, the MPLS WG consensus continues to be 
that only one OAM solution should become a standard.

Russ

On Oct 5, 2011, at 11:02 PM, Rui Costa wrote:

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." 

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