ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Questions about draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point

2011-12-21 06:03:54
As mentioned, I proposed you listen to the record…it will help you refreshing 
your memory!

You may want to listen also to Final and U.K….and I propose you listen again 
also to what U.S said…

There was also a note on the huge effort to find a compromise that did not work 
out….:-(

 

From: ext HUANG Feng F 
[mailto:Feng(_dot_)f(_dot_)Huang(_at_)alcatel-sbell(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 1:59 PM
To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
Cc: ext Huub helvoort; Russ Housley; 
Malcolm(_dot_)BETTS(_at_)zte(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn; 
ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk
Subject: Re: Questions about draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point

 

Nurit,

   Yes, you can memory the record, US stated because of lacking of ACH code 
point, they don't support it, other 3 states support US as same position. So 
the origin is lack of ACH code point.  The liaison recorded the ITU-T status 
too.

Best Regard

Feng Huang

OPD, Alcatel Lucent Shanghai Bell

86-21-50554550-5515






在 2011-12-21,19:32,"Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" 
<nurit(_dot_)sprecher(_at_)nsn(_dot_)com> 写道:

        Feng,

        I do not care about the liaison…the liaison was not sent by the member 
states…

        I care about the reasons that member states gave when they opposed 
G.8113.1. The main reason was "lack of consensus"….

        But I propose that everyone that have TIES access listen to the audio 
of the meeting and judge it…

        Best regards,

        Nurit

         

        From: ext HUANG Feng F 
[mailto:Feng(_dot_)f(_dot_)Huang(_at_)alcatel-sbell(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn] 
        Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 1:29 PM
        To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
        Cc: ext Huub helvoort; Russ Housley; 
Malcolm(_dot_)BETTS(_at_)zte(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn; 
ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk
        Subject: Re: Questi! ons about draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point! 

         

        Nurit,

            You left Plenary too early and when it was not closed, ITU has 
decided to send a Liasion to IETF on this issue  the draft of G.8113.1 is 
stable, the only reason is lack of Ach code point, you can see liaison from 
ITU-T.

        Best Regard

        Feng Huang

        OPD, Alcatel Lucent Shanghai Bell

        86-21-50554550-5515

        
        
        
        

        
        在 2011-12-21,19:00,"Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" 
<nurit(_dot_)sprecher(_at_)nsn(_dot_)com> 写道:

                Huub hi,

                I was in the closing plenary, and I heard different reasons for 
not approving G.8113.1. 

                The main argument that I heard was because of lack of 
consensus. ! 

                Best regards,

                Nurit

                 

                From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of ext Huub helvoort
                Sent: Wedn! esday, December 21, 2011 12:51 PM
                To: Russ Housley; 
Malcolm(_dot_)BETTS(_at_)zte(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn
                Cc: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk; 
draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org; 
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
                Subject: RE: Questions about draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point

                 

                Hello Russ,
                
                You wrote:

                 

                > My understanding is that there is not a stable agreed 
G.8113.1 document to reference.
                > Is my understanding incorrect?
                
                Your understanding is partially incorrect:
                
                The draft recommendation G.8113.1 is stable, there have been no 
major technical
                changes since it was sent to the IETF (when it still had the 
draft name G.tpoam) 
                attache to liaison: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/983/
                This is also the status I reported when we did discuss this 
during IETF82 in Taipei.
                
                G.8113.1 could not be approved because of the technical reason 
that there is
                no ACh codepoint assigned. 

                Best regards, Huub.

                 

                ======

                On Dec 20, 2011, at 11:09 AM, 
Malcolm(_dot_)BETTS(_at_)zte(_dot_)com(_dot_)cn wrote:

                
                
                
                
                

                Hi Adrian, 
                
                Thank you for finding time to respond to this request.  As ! 
you know I was attending the same 2 week SG 15 meeting and was! probabl y at 
least as busy as you given my official role in the meeting. 
                
                I will update draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point early in the 
new year based on  the results of SG 15 the ended last Friday and your 
comments.  I will also discussan update of the shepherd write up  with Huub. 
                
                Regards, 
                
                Malcolm 
                
                
                
                
                

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> 
Sent by: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 

09/12/2011 05:49 AM 

Please respond to
adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk

To

<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org>, "'Huub 
helvoort'" <huub(_dot_)van(_dot_)helvoort(_at_)huawei(_dot_)com> 

cc

mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org, ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 

Subject

Questions about draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point

 

                

                
                
                
                Hi Malcolm and Huub,
                
                I have squeezed a little time from the current ITU-T meeting to 
look at your
                draft and write-up. I have also read the email threads on the 
IETF discussion
                list and the MPLS list. Sorry that this has taken me a week to 
process, but your
                publication request came at pretty much the worst possible time 
for getting me
                to do this task.
                
                I don't like proliferating threads across multiple mailing 
lists. On the other
                hand it is difficult to ensure that all the constituencies are 
present, so I am
                perpetuating the cross-posting.
                
                My review of the document...
                
                1. idnits (http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ 
<http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/> ) shows a couple of nits. I think
                only one of these is real (the spurious space in a citation). 
The other nits are
                spurious caused by citations wrapping across lines. Could you 
please keep a note
                of the nit so that you can fix it the next time the draft is 
respun or so it can! 
                be captured in an RFC Editor Note at a later stage (you don't 
have to post a new
                revision to address this now unless you really want to).
                
                2. This document requests a code point from a registry that 
contains code points
                that are used equally for MPLS LSPs and pseudowires. I can't 
tell from the I-D
                whether it is your intention that your code point would also be 
applicable in
                both cases. What is your intention? Is this "obvious" from 
G.8113.1 or does it
                need to be clarified?
                
                
                My review of the write-up and discussions...
                
                3. There seems to be quite a feeling on the mailing lists that 
this document
                should be run through the MPLS working group. The write-up 
makes a case for
                progressing it as AD ! sponsored. As far as I can see, the main 
assertions to
                answer are as follows. Do you have a view on these points 
before I make a
                decision on what to do?
                
                a. This is a proposal to use an MPLS code point and so is part 
of MPLS by
                definition.
                
                b. The type of network being managed by the OAM described in 
G.8113.1 is an MPLS
                netw ork. Therefore, this is clearly relevant to the MPLS 
working .
                
                Do you object to this going through the MPLS on principle, or 
were you just
                hoping to save the WG the work? If the latter, and if the WG 
wants to look at
                the draft, the easiest approach seems to be to redirect the 
work to the working
                group.
                
                4. G.8113.1 is clearly important to understanding to which the 
code poin! t is
                being put. Thus, an available and stable copy of group. 
G.8113.1 will be key to
                the last call review of you I-D. Can you make a stable copy 
available (for
                example, through liaison)? How does the editing work currently 
in progress in
                the SG15 meeting affect that availability?
                
                5. Can you clarify for me why the suggested value has been 
suggested. This will! 
                help guide IANA who would normally do their allocation in a 
"tidy" way.
                
                Looking forward to your reply.
                
                Thanks,
                Adrian
                
                _______________________________________________
                Ietf mailing list
                Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
                https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf 
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf> 
                
                
                _______________________________________________
                Ietf mailing list
                Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
                https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

                 

                _______________________________________________Ietf mailing list
                Ietf@ietf! .org <mailto: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