Malcolm,
seems that you have the problem claiming text refers to "assumptions"
or "discussion points", especially since the format of the text is
clearly "decision".
/Loa
On 2011-10-15 02:37, Malcolm(_dot_)BETTS(_at_)zte(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn wrote:
Loa,
I still do not understand how you can claim that the words from slide
113 of RFC 5317 and quoted in section 1.1 of
draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01:
"It is technically feasible that the existing MPLS architecture can be
extended to meet the requirements of a Transport profile
The architecture allows for a single OAM technology for LSPs, PWE
and a deeply nested network"
Represent a decision or even a recommendation.
However, if as you insist it was a "decision" can you explain why the
IETF chose to ignore this "decision" and initially defined different
encapsulations for the PW and LSP OAM and subsequently defined a second
encapsulation for PW OAM. So that now we have two encapsulations for OAM
in MPLS-TP PWs.
Regards,
Malcolm
*Loa Andersson <loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu>*
14/10/2011 10:37 AM
To
Malcolm(_dot_)BETTS(_at_)zte(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn
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 - comment 2
Malocolm,
there is no conflict - the one OAM solution was and is a decision.
/Loa
On 2011-10-14 15:59, Malcolm(_dot_)BETTS(_at_)zte(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn wrote:
> Loa,
>
> I have added - comment 2 to the subject line and deleted all the other
> comments.
>
> I cannot find section 1.1 or the text "one OAM solution" in the PDF
> version of RFC 5317.
>
> The last paragraph of section 1 states:
>
> In the case of a conflict between the summary and the
> slides, the slides take precedence. Since those slides were the
> basis of an important agreement between the IETF and the ITU-T, it
> should further be noted that in the event that the PDF version of the
> slides differs from those emailed to ITU-T and IETF management on 18
> April 2008 by the co-chairs of the JWT, the emailed slides take
> precedence.
>
> The full quote from slide 12 is:
> > 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
>
> I must also remind you that the JWT did not have the power to make
> decision for the ITU or IETF as stated in TD515/PLEN that established
> the ad group on MPLS-TP and the JWT:
>
> "The Joint Working Team is the union of the ad hoc and design teams. It
> has no official affiliation or status with either the ITU-T or the IETF
> but will provide a forum for open communication and cooperative work"
>
> This is aligned with normal process in the IETF where a design team
> cannot make decisions for a Working Group.
>
> Therefore, my proposed clarification of the context of the "one
> solution" statement should be included in
> draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Malcolm
>
>
>
> *Loa Andersson <loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu>*
>
> 14/10/2011 02:15 AM
>
>
> To
> Malcolm(_dot_)BETTS(_at_)zte(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> All,
>
> juat one small comment on how "slide 12" of the JWT report is (mis)used
> in this debate.
>
> The text says:
>
> " 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."
>
> The paragraph is correct and it says that the presentation includes
> - assumptions
> - discussion points
> - decisions
>
> The statement on "one OAM solution" from section 1.1 of RFC5317 clearly
> falls into the *decision* category. As such it rather support
> publishing the draft rather than indicating that we shouldn't.
>
> /Loa
>
> On 2011-10-14 04:31, Malcolm(_dot_)BETTS(_at_)zte(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn wrote:
> > Below are my comments on this draft, these are in addition to the
> > comments that I have provided previously. I also support the comments
> > that propose the deletion of sections 4, 5 and 6.
> >
> > I have numbered my comments (1-12) to simplify identification for those
> > who wish to respond.
> >
> > I do not support approval of this draft in its current form.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Malcolm
> >
>
> >
> > 2) Quote from RFC5317
> >
> > Section 1.1 includes the following:
> > [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."
> >
> > The context of this quote from slide 113 should be clarified; slide 12
> > states of RFC 5317 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
> >
> > Proposal: Insert the following text before the quoted text:
> >
> > [RFC 5317] provides a collection of assumptions, discussion points and
> > decisions that the JWT 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. Included in this analysis is
> > the statement 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."
> >
>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
--
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
--
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