All,
I read this draft and support the publication as an informational RFC.
I believe the document is needed since it explains why it is not
beneficial to standardize two solutions for the same purpose. The
document also makes clear some of the aspects I was not aware of.
It is obvious that two solutions would cause a lot of unnecessary effort
and costs. There are many examples which show that competing standards
are contra-productive for the goals of each party.
I fully agree with one of the statements I read on this list.
"I think it would be irresponsible of the IETF not to document this
situation."
Mehmet
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-announce-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-announce-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]
On Behalf Of ext The IESG
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 9:43 PM
To: IETF-Announce
Subject: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt>
(TheReasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM)
toInformational
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-consideration
s/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-consideration
s/
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf