----- Original Message -----
From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)"
<nurit(_dot_)sprecher(_at_)nsn(_dot_)com>
To: "ext t.petch" <daedulus(_at_)btconnect(_dot_)com>;
<stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 12:07 PM
Tom,
Did Huub and Malcolm represent the ITU in their assessments?
<tp>
Nurit
You know full well that, on a WG list such as the mpls one from which my quotes
came, we all speak as individuals, you, I and everyone else, not representing
any organisation.
At the same time, as any WG chair must know and act on, some people's views
deserve more weight than other people's. My personal judgement is that the
people I quoted are likely to have a good insight into the practices and
processes of the ITU-T, most likely the best view I will get, absent a formal
liaison on this particular point. YMMV.
Tom Petch
</tp>
I guess other ITU members have different view on this!
Best regards,
Nurit
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
ext t.petch
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 5:06 PM
To: stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stewart Bryant" <stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
To: "t.petch" <daedulus(_at_)btconnect(_dot_)com>
Cc: "Fangyu Li" <fangyuli1999(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 4:12 PM
On 16/03/2012 08:46, t.petch wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stewart Bryant"<stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
To: "Fangyu Li"<fangyuli1999(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Cc:<lifang(_at_)catr(_dot_)cn>;<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:53 PM
On 14/03/2012 13:36, Fangyu Li wrote:
I support the allocation of an ACH codepoint to G.8113.1.
For G.8113.1 had reached the technical and industry maturity to be
assigned a code point, the codepoint allocation from IETF should
allow
the ITU-T to progress refinements to G.8113.1 such that it could
satisfy all the functional requirements defined in RFC 5860.
Please can you tell me version of the G.8113.1 text one would
need to implement to be able to seamlessly interwork with the
equipment that has already been been deployed?
Stewart
I am sure you already know the answer to that from posts made to the
mpls
list,
where we have been told that there is currently an extensive
deployment
('running code') using an experimental value (interesting that there
is a
last
call just ending seeking to exterminate such practice, at least for
application
protocols) and that the wish is to move to a standards-based value
which
will,
perforce, be a different value.
Tom Petch
Tom,
I don't think you understood my question.
There are several version of the G.8113.1 text in circulation within
the ITU-T. I was asking which version accurately describes the
deployed protocol.
Stewart
One of the e-mails I had in mind was that of Huub Helvoort last December
where
he said
"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."
while another such e-mail is that of Malcolm Betts in January where he
said
"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."
I was thinking that that was enough reassurance about the protocol and
its
stability.
I agree that the documents as liaised to us specify that special value
of XXXX
but we were told, on the mpls list, that an experimental value was in
use, ie
one that fell within the remit of section 10 of RFC5586, which, again, I
took to
be sufficient information.
Tom Petch
I would be interested to also know what ACh Type it is actually
running
on.
Stewart