Hi Adrian,
I can confirm that the draft is requesting a code point for the version of
G.8113.1 that was forwarded to WTSA by SG 15, this is the same as the
draft that was determined in February 2011, I am not anticipating any
changes prior to the approval decision at WTSA. None of the changes in
G.8113.1 that were anticipated in draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01
were implemented, I will post a new version
draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point to correctly reflect the content and
title on G.8113.1 and respond to the other questions later this week.
Regards,
Malcolm
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
09/01/2012 12:33 PM
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
RE: Questions about draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point
Hi Huub and Malcolm,
I recognise that the intervening month between my original email and this
one
included an SG15 meeting, Christmas, and New Year, but I had hoped for a
response by now so that we could work out what to do with the document.
In the meantime, at least my question 4 has progressed. Can you confirm
that the
version of G.8113.1 for which a code point is requested is that which has
been
sent to WTSA by SG15 (i.e., that which was determined), and that there are
no
plans to make any updates or revisions to that document until after it has
been
approved.
Thanks,
Adrian
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Adrian
Farrel
Sent: 09 December 2011 10:49
To: draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org; 'Huub
helvoort'
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/) 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 network. 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
point 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