----- Original Message -----
From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)"
<nurit(_dot_)sprecher(_at_)nsn(_dot_)com>
To: <stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>; "Adrian Farrel"
<adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
Cc: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
<iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
<Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 5:06 PM
Hi,
I fully support Stewart!
G.8113.1 proposes a OAM solution for MPLS-TP networks.
It uses the MPLS EtherType (when transmitted inband and getting the same
treatment as the data traffic).
The document is built on G.8110.1 (MPLS-TP architecture) which refers to
G.8110 (MPLS architecture), and G.8110.1 refers to G.8113.1 back...
This makes it part of MPLS and MPLS-TP.
Nurit and others,
I would commend to you the e-mail that Russ posted here 30Nov2011 in which he
says, to Malcolm Johnson, Director of the ITU Telecommunication Standardization
Bureau,
IETF consensus continues to be required to allocate the code point. My
experience leads me to believe that careful clarity about the proposed content
changes to G.8113.1, as well as specific clarity that G.8113.1 is not part of
MPLS and MPLS-TP, will aid in achieving such a consensus. The current situation
has engendered quite a bit of ambiguity in wording which, in my experience, will
not produce IETF consensus.
so claiming what is and is not part of MPLS-TP calls for some thought.
My interpretation is that this is not part of MPLS-TP, but that the code point
should be allocated in accordance with RFC4929 which, as I pointed out on the
MPLS list, does not require a standards track RFC and requires review by what
the IESG considers suitable, which could, or could not, include the MPLS list;
but the starting point should be the prior art which Russ has provided us with.
The deadline would appear to be 12Jan2012 which Malcolm and Huub would
appear to have provided us with the wherewithall to meet.
Tom Petch
And it should be reviewed by the MPLS WG.
Best regards,
Nurit
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
ext Stewart Bryant
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 1:55 PM
To: Adrian Farrel
Cc: draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org;
iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Request to publish
draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt
Adrian
"It is the opinion of the document shepherd that discussion of
this document on the working group lists would be a distraction
from the technical protocol work that the working groups
need to do."
I disagree with the document shepherd in his evaluation.
The draft clearly sets out to enable the standardization
of an additional OAM for MPLS, and as such the MPLS WG
need to review the document and its references to
determine the consequences of the technology being
deployed.
Furthermore, all MPLS documents that have so far requested
ACH codepoints have I believe been standards track. Why
is this not also a standards track document?
Stewart
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf