Hi,
I cannot support the publication of the document in its current version.
I have the following concerns:
* It is indicated that the channel is intended to be used to
carry Ethernet based OAM messages. It is not clear why there is a need
for ACH. PWs can be used to transmit Ethernet OAM.
If the intention is to use the channel for OAM messages for operating
MPLS-TP based networks, the IETF *already* defined a solution for
MPLS-TP OAM and I expect to see first a technical *justification* why a
second solution is needed. In addition, I would expect to see
*references to the arguments* raised in
draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations.
* It is not clear what the maturity status of G.8113.1 is. It
seems that the document was not approved by SG15 and the discussion was
deferred to WTSA. This indicates that there is *no consensus* for the
approval of G.8113.1. A code point should not be allocated before a
consensus/decision is reached in the ITU-T and before the document is
mature and approved. I do not think it is appropriate to allocate a code
point and try to force a resolution in the ITU-T.
* I find a contradiction in the draft. In one place it is
mentioned: "These Ethernet based OAM messages and procedures, address
the OAM functional requirements defined in [RFC5860]. Other message
types should not be carried behind this code point." In another place it
is mentioned: "all ITU-T Recommendations are subject to revision.
Therefore, the code point allocated by this document may be used for
future versions of [G.8113.1].". The last statement opens the door for
the definition of additional messages in G.8113.1 in the following
versions, for example, for APS (supporting linear or ring protection
mechanisms) and by this creates two solutions for other mechanisms as
well.
The use of the code point can go much beyond its original purpose and it
will hide other messages....a code point should not be allocated at this
point at all, but specifically not for unknown usage that may be defined
in future versions of G.8113.1.
Best regards,
Nurit
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-announce-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<mailto:ietf-announce-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> [mailto:ietf-announce-
bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> ] On Behalf
Of The IESG
Sent: 22 February 2012 15:13
To: IETF-Announce
Subject: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>
(Allocation of
an
Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to
Informational RFC
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
consider
the following document:
- 'Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T
Ethernet based OAM'
<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.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 <mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> mailing lists by
2012-03-21.
Exceptionally, comments may
be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> instead.
In either case,
please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
Abstract
This document assigns an Associated Channel Type code point for
carrying Ethernet based Operations, Administration, and Management
messages in the MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh).
The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point/
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point/>
IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point/
<http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point/>
No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
IETF-Announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:IETF-Announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce>
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto: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 <mailto: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