Loa hi,
I think your proposal is productive and provides a good basis to
progress.
Please see some comments inline (<Nurit>...\<Nurit>).
Best regards,
Nurit
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
ext Loa Andersson
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 10:32 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [PWE3] FW: Last
Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an
Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernet based OAM)to
Informational RFC
All,
I've been asked to clarify thee comments in this mail, I done
so by proposing new text to draft-betts-.
I hope this helps.
Title
=====
Comment: We want to assign a Associated Channel Type. The registry
that it will be assigned from is "Pseudowire Associated Channel
Types"; however RFC 5586, makes the Channel Types generic and I
think the title should be changed as follows:
OLD:
Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T
Ethernet based OAM
NEW:
Allocation of an Generic Associated Channel Type for ITU-T
MPLS-TP OAM
Note: Neither MPLS-TP or OAM are in the RFC Editors list of wellknown
acronyms, therfore the title probably should be:
NEW:
Allocation of an Generic Associated Channel Type for ITU-T
MPLS Transport Profile Operation, Maintenance and Administration.
Introduction - first paragraph
==============================
In the first paragraph of the introduction, there seems to be an
oddity in the description of the role of the ietf-tp-oam-analysis
document. Instead of:
OLD
"tools defined by the IETF [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis], that
are intended to meet the OAM functional requirements defined in
[RFC5860]."
NEW:
"tools described by the IETF [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis], which
are used to meet the OAM functional requirements defined
in [RFC5860]."
<Nurit> should we say "described and referred by..."? \<Nurit>
<Nurit> should we say "...that satisfies the OAM functional requirements
defined in [RFC586]"?
Intrduction - second paragraph
==============================
The next paragraph in describing G.8113.1, stumbles over the current
vs anticipated future state of G.8113.1 and its relationship to
its antecedents. I'm a bit un-certain about the correct terminology,
but I think the following change would improve the document.
OLD:
The ITU-T has documented, in draft new Recommendation [G.8113.1], the
use of Ethernet based OAM mechanisms, originally defined in [Y.1731],
carried in the MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh). This approach
requires the allocation of an ACH Type from the registry of ACH types
maintained by IANA in order that the messages that will be described
in [G.8113.1] can be identified by an implementation.
NEW:
"The ITU-T has Draft Recommendation [G.8113.1] documented MPLS OAM
which as of this writing is undergoing the ITU-T Traditional
Approval Process (TAP). This Recommendation builds upon Ethernet
OAM as documented in [Y.1731]. The messages in [G.8113.1] are defined
to be carried in a new Associated Channel Type in the MPLS Generaic
Associated Channel (G-Ach). In order to carry these messages in an
interoperable fashion, an Associated Channel Type from the IANA
maintained registry "Pseudowire Associated Channel Types is to be
used."
Note there are confusion around some of the Associated Channel
acronyms that are refledted in this document.
ACh is Associated Channel
ACH is Associated Chamnnel Header
G-ACh is Generic Associated Channel
"ACH Type" is not used anywhere in IETF documents; we talk about
Associated Channel Type or Generic Associated Channel Type
(G-ACh Type).
Introduction - third paragraph
==============================
In the third paragraph, there seems to be an unnecessary reference
to experimental types. When asking for a code point for a standard,
it is not helped to bring up experimental code space. Can we remove
the text reading:
OLD:
"without continuing to resorting to the use of an experimental
ACH Type,"
NEW
-
Section 2 - first paragraph
===========================
In section 2, the first sentence refers to Ethernet based OAM
messages. As far as I know, the messages in G.8113.1 are either
MPLS-TP OAM messages, or they are simply the OAM messages defined
in G.8113.1. The simplest path to clarity would seem to be to
replace "Ethernet based OAM messages" in that sentence with
"messages".
The second sentence of that paragraph does not seem to say anything
we need to say. Can we remove it?
OLD:
The code point allocated by this document is intended to be used
only
for Ethernet based OAM messages, defined in the ITU-T Recommendation
[G.8113.1], carried in the G-ACh . 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.
NEW:
The code point allocated by this document is intended to be used
only for OAM messages, defined in the ITU-T Recommendation
[G.8113.1], carried in the G-ACh . Other message types should not
be carried behind this Associated Channel Type.
<Nurit> here we should be clearer about which OAM messages we refer to.
It should be clear that these are the only ones that satisfy the
requirements of RFC 5860. I want to make sure that messages of
protection mechanisms are not included and are not hidden by the
allocated codepoint. \<Nurit>
Section 2 - second paragraph
============================
A matter of some clarity, can we change this paragrap like this:
OLD:
This code point may be used on any transport construct that uses
the G-ACh, e.g., MPLS-TP Sections, MPLS-TP LSPs or PWs.
NEW:
The Generic Associated Channel Type assigned by this
document may be used on any transport construct that uses the
G-ACh, e.g., MPLS-TP Sections, MPLS-TP LSPs or PWs as specified
by G.8113.1.
Section 2 - third paragraph
===========================
With regard to revisions, which is what I think the third paragraph
is about, I am not clear what you are trying to say. A code point
allocation must point to a stable referent. If the desired referent
changes, then process needs to be followed to make sure that the IANA
is updated in accordance with IETF procedures. Hence, I am left to
the conclusion that the third paragraph is actually asking for
something we can not do. Can we remove that?
OLD:
All ITU-T Recommendations are subject to revisions. Therefore, the
code point allocated by this document may be used for future
versions
of [G.8113.1].
NEW:
-
On 2012-02-27 14:51, Loa Andersson wrote:
All,
I agree with Stewart, while shortage of code points might be a reason
to think twice before allocating one, "abundance" in itself is never
a reason to allocate code points.
I'm way less inclined to approve of this draft in the condition it
is now. Actually I believe that we should think very careful before
approving it at all.
/Loa
On 2012-02-27 14:01, Stewart Bryant wrote:
Daniel
Shortage of ACh types was never an issue.
The issue issue is the concerns articulated in
draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations
Stewart
On 23/02/2012 10:35, Daniel Cohn wrote:
Support - as there is no foreseen shortage in ACH types, I don't see
a
reason why this code point should not be allocated to an ITU
developed
protocol that is already deployed in the field.
DC
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-announce-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-announce-
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 mailing lists by 2012-03-21. Exceptionally,
comments
may
be
sent to 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/
IESG discussion can be tracked via
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
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Loa Andersson email:
loa(_dot_)andersson(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu
Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13
+46 767 72 92 13
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf