Hi,
I fully agree with John and Tom.
G.8113.1 intends to provide an OAM solution for MPLS-TP networks and the
discussion on your draft completely belongs in the MPLS WG and also in
the PWE3 WG.
Two more points:
* Malcolm, you say that that the requested code point is not
limited to G.8113.1..."other uses are not prohibited by this draft." I
think it should be very clear for what exactly use it is requested.
* Malcolm, you mention that the value of the code point
corresponds to the Ethertype used for Ethernet OAM....are you sure you
approached the appropriate organization for the code point you are
looking for? It seems that you either need to approach the IEEE and look
for an EtherType or simply use PWs to transmit Ethernet OAM.
Best regards,
Nurit
From: mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
ext Thomas Nadeau
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:30 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [mpls] Questions about draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point
On Jan 12, 2012, at 3:18 PM, John E Drake wrote:
Snipped, comments inline.
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.
[MB] G.8113.1 supports a subset of the functions defined in
draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-08. The -00 version was posted in March
2009, the draft was presented at several meetings in 2009 and early 2010
and had extensive discussion on the MPLS mailing list. However, the
MPLS WG have, by rough consensus, adopted a different approach.
Therefore, further review by the MPLS WG is of little value.
[JD] Um, I don't think so.
Since, as you state above, G.8113.1 is effectively draft-bhh and since
draft-bhh was explicitly rejected by the MPLS WG, your draft, which
requests a code point for G.8113.1, is basically an attempt to subvert
the decision by the MPLS WG to reject draft-bhh by attempting to bypass
the WG with an individual submission.
So, I think it is clear that your draft belongs in the MPLS WG.
Incidentally, the MPLS/GMPLS change process was put in place in reaction
to the publication of another individual submission, RFC3474, which was
completely non-interoperable with standard RSVP, a surprisingly similar
situation.
Well said John. I couldn't have put it any better myself,
and so agree with that statement %100.
--Tom
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf