I fail to understand the issue under discussion.
Can't imagine IEEE denying to grant Ethertype 0x86DD. If, however, from absurd
that had happened, would the world stop or would we take the same information
from the IP header version field?
Regards,
Rui
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Alia Atlas
Sent: quarta-feira, 21 de Março de 2012 15:30
To: D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: הנדון: RE: Last
Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated
Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to Informational RFC
Considering that the need for this code point is a result of the ITU
not fully complying with the IETF agreement, I cannot agree that we
should simply allocate a code point for whatever the ITU wants to do
in the future.
It seems the best of the options to allocate a code point (much better
than squatting) - but tie it to a stable reference. If the ITU can't
provide a stable reference, then perhaps an RFC is the best way.
There are lots of folks with opinions on the best procedure, but I
certainly don't support the idea of not restricting the usage to what
is clearly defined.
Alia
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Sprecher, Nurit (NSN -
IL/Hod HaSharon)
Sent: quarta-feira, 21 de Março de 2012 07:42
To: huubatwork(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>
(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet
basedOAM) to Informational RFC
Hello,
I still expect the author of draft-betts to answer my question...
"Maybe you could clarify how the text in your draft can be improved to
protect the use of the code point from future extensions beyond the purpose of
the code point allocation?"
I am a bit disappointed to see that the author simply does not respond to the
questions and proposed modifications he got on the list.
If we want to productively move forward, it would be good to have the author
responding to the questions and proposals.
Best regards,
Nurit
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)"
<nurit(_dot_)sprecher(_at_)nsn(_dot_)com>
To: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>; "ext Ross Callon"
<rcallon(_at_)juniper(_dot_)net>
Cc: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:09 PM
Subject: הנדון: RE: Last
Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated
Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to Informational RFC
Ross,
i am afraid that you missed the point. There will not be a final version since
as written in draft-betts, all ITU recommendations are subject to revisions,
and the code point will also be used for future revisions of the document. New
messages/protocols can be defined in future revisions of the recommendation and
they will use the same code point that is allocated for the first version.
This is a real issue.
Regards,
Nurit
-----הודעה מקורית-----
מאת: ext Ross Callon
נשלח: 13/03/2012, 19:27
אל: Andrew G. Malis; Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
עותק: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
נושא: RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an
Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to
Informational RFC I agree that the allocation of a code point should be to a
specific version of 8113.1,
<tp>
Why?
I can understand a new code point being required if there is a new and
backwards incompatible format for the messages, but if the messages are
extended in a forwards compatible manner, adding new TLV for example, or a new
format of IF_ID, then why should we burn a new code point?
Would you say that we should have a dozen different port numbers for HTTP to
reflect its evolution over time? If not, why not?
Demanding that the ITU-T come back to us for a new round of negotiation when it
is technically unnecessary seems to be placing an unnecessary barrier between
the two SDOs.
Tom Petch
and specifically should be to the final version that is approved by the ITU-T
(assuming that a final version of 8113.1 will be approved by the ITU-T). This
would imply that draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point should contain a normative
reference to the final approved version of 8113.1.
Given normal IETF processes, this implies that the final RFC resulting from
draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point could be published as soon as the final
version of 8113.1 is approved (with the understanding that there will be a
small normal delay between "approved" and "published" which gives time for
coordination). Given that the final version of 8113.1 might need to reference
the RFC resulting from draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point, a bit of cooperation
might be needed between editorial staff at the ITU and RFC editorial staff, but
I don't see why this should be a problem (I am sure that they all have access
to email).
Ross
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 6:54 PM
To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof
an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to
Informational RFC
I would like to support Nurit's comments below. In particular, in the past the
ITU-T has expanded upon or changed the usage of IETF codepoint allocations, in
some cases incompatibly with its original usage or definition. In the future,
all codepoint allocations to the ITU-T should be tied to one specific, dated
revision of their specification only. This is similar to the ITU-T's own
processes, such as section 2.2.1 of Rec. A.5, which requires a version number
and/or date for referenced outside documents in ITU-T recommendations.
Cheers,
Andy
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod
HaSharon) <nurit(_dot_)sprecher(_at_)nsn(_dot_)com> wrote:
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] 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
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone
indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla
conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate
ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne
immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione,
Grazie.
This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged
information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying,
printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended
recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender
by return e-mail, Thanks.