Speaking only as an individual, I also support publication of this document as
an informational RFC.
I agree with many comments that the SONET discussion in section 5.1 should be
deleted, and I would suggest that all of sections 4 and 5 be deleted.
I was involved in the controversy that created both IS-IS and OSPF (as well as
in the significant cooperation on protocol details that was going on in the
background at the same time) and I think that the section on IS-IS and OSPF is
mostly correct (even if I would have worded some of it a bit differently). One
change I would make to this section is changing "more than doubles the cost of
link state IGP maintenance and deployment" to be "doubles the cost of link
state IGP maintenance". Also "derive from the same root document" should be
"derive from the same root technology". Of course if sections 4 and 5 are
deleted then there is no need to make these minor corrections to section 4.1.
Regarding Russ's comment "...only one OAM solution should become a standard". I
might note that there is considerable precedent in the IETF for publishing one
standard, but also publishing informational RFCs that document other solutions
that were considered in the IETF effort and that have been deployed. There
certainly are many cases of pre-standard or non-standard solutions being
deployed (often before IETF standards were finished) and in these cases I have
long felt that it is desirable to document what has been deployed.
Ross
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Russ Housley
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 11:03 AM
To: IETF
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