I have reservations about the readiness of this I-D. The technical content looks ok, but the process by which it has been arrived at gives me pause. It is a crucial document for MPLS-TP, perhaps the most important after the requirements ones, like, say, RFC3411 for SNMP. This Last Call is on -11 which shows substantial changes from -10 (eg in S3.4) and, despite assiduously tracking the list, I am unsure where these changes have come from. I do not see them discussed, I do not see any consensus declared for (or against) them nor is there any explanation in the I-D itself. The topics covered include some that have provoked considerable debate, over the past two years, involving hundreds of e-mails, including a sequence where several exceeded one Megabyte in size each. Yet, again, I have not seen any consensus declared on the list on most of these topics. The topics I have in mind include; what is MPLS-TP? Is it a layer network, in the G.805/G.800 sense, a set of such layers or what? (and saying it is a Profile has no meaning until the word 'Profile' has been defined in this context). S3.1 of this I-D, like its predecessor, talks variously of 'MPLS-TP network', MPLS-TP layer network' and 'MPLS-TP server' which I find less than clear. How does MPLS-TP relate to MPLS? My sense is that it is a subset of a superset, a superset because MPLS lacks, eg, adequate OAM, a subset to make it as simple as possible but not simpler. (Again, simply saying 'Profile' is really only tautology. Are features in or out? ECMP, NNI, PHP, multiple QoS? I think that some of these are still being debated as the Working Group Last Call proceeds in parallel with this Last Call. S-bit; how many allowed in the stack; I think that the consensus is one, but then what does it mean, and what happens to the meaning it would have had when there were more than one? MIP; where and how many? It is not that a view could not be formed on some of these issues from reading the I-D, but where does that view come from? Not, as far as I can see, from any IETF WG list. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "The IESG" <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx> Cc: <mpls@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 4:33 PM Subject: [mpls] Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework (A Framework forMPLS in Transport Networks) to Informational RFC > The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG > (mpls) to consider the following document: > > - 'A Framework for MPLS in Transport Networks ' > <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-11.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@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2010-04-21. Exceptionally, > comments may be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please > retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > The file can be obtained via > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-11.txt > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=18027&rf c_flag=0 > > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > mpls@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf