Tom, Many thanks for your comments. I have copied Loa who may want to respond to the procedural comments. Please see responses below for responses to technical/document content issues. Best regards Matthew, Stewart and Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Tom.Petch > Sent: 17 April 2010 19:03 > To: ietf > Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework (A > Framework forMPLS in Transport Networks) to Informational RFC > > 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 majority of these changes are a consequence of ITU-T review comments and were discussed on the open calls on tuesdays, as advertised on the MPLS-TP list. Note that in normal IETF procedure more of this discussion would indeed have taken place on the list. However, we needed to operate in a way that allowed the ITU-T to communicate with us in a way that they felt comfortable. > 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. We have used the term 'Profile' in the context that it has been used in RFC5654 and RFC5317. That is, a set of functional building blocks to meet the requirements as set out in RFC5654. > > 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. This is addressed in section 3.2. > > 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. I believe that all of these are explicitly addressed in the document. > > 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? We believe that the current draft reflects the consensus as dicussed in various open calls, WG sessions, and on the mailing list over the last two years. > > MIP; where and how many? > That is dicussed as a part of the MPLS-TP OAM Framewokr draft rather than the overall framework. > 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. The majority of the discussion occurred on the MPLS-TP list rather than the MPLS 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.tx > > t > > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=vie w_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 > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf