Erminio, I do not think the history is relevant for this specific discussion... Also I find it inappropriate to give statements with no justifications behind. You say: "the solution in this draft is useless for many MPLS-TP deployments.". in order to seriously consider your comment, you have to show why it is useless and which requirements are not satisfied. Otherwise you cannot expect anyone to refer to your point. Best regards, Nurit P.s. did you mean that the document is useless to available non-standard deployments, e.g. T-MPLS? -----Original Message----- From: mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext erminio.ottone_69@xxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 8:34 PM To: RCosta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; IETF-Announce Cc: mpls@xxxxxxxx Subject: [mpls] R: Re: LastCall: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt> (Proactive Connectivity Verification,Continuity Check and Remote Defect indicationfor MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard The way this draft has been developed is a bit strange. The poll for its adoption as a WG document was halted by the MPLS WG chair because "it is not possible to judge consensus": http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg04502.html The lack of consensus was motivated by serious technical concerns raised by several transport experts during the poll. Nevertheless the MPLS WG chair decided to adopt the draft as a WG document: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg04512.html After several WG revisions and WG LCs, the technical issues have not been resolved. >Several service providers regarded this draft as not meeting their transport networks' needs. This is a true statement: the solution in this draft is useless for many MPLS- TP deployments. >----Messaggio originale---- >Da: RCosta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >Data: 5-lug-2011 0.02 >A: "ietf@xxxxxxxx"<ietf@xxxxxxxx>, "IETF-Announce"<ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx> >Cc: "mpls@xxxxxxxx"<mpls@xxxxxxxx> >Ogg: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt> (Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard > >IMHO and for the record: > >ITU-T comments regarding this draft haven't been discussed with ITU-T but were simply ignored. No LS describing these comments' resolution was sent. > >Several service providers regarded this draft as not meeting their transport networks' needs. > >[The v03 draft was published in Feb and went to WG LC. >The v04 draft addressing WG LC comments was published on the 28th June (same date as the proto write-up). >When was the WG LC launched, to verify LC comments resolution?] > >Regards, >Rui > > >-----Original Message----- >From: mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of The IESG >Sent: quinta-feira, 30 de Junho de 2011 14:47 >To: IETF-Announce >Cc: mpls@xxxxxxxx >Subject: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt> (Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard > > >The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG >(mpls) to consider the following document: >- 'Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote > Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile' > <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt> as a Proposed Standard > >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 2011-07-14. Exceptionally, comments may be >sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the >beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > >Abstract > > Continuity Check, Proactive Connectivity Verification and Remote > Defect Indication functionalities are required for MPLS-TP OAM. > > Continuity Check monitors the integrity of the continuity of the > label switched path for any loss of continuity defect. Connectivity > verification monitors the integrity of the routing of the label > switched path between sink and source for any connectivity issues. > Remote defect indication enables an End Point to report, to its > associated End Point, a fault or defect condition that it detects on > a pseudo wire, label switched path or Section. > > This document specifies methods for proactive continuity check, > continuity verification, and remote defect indication for MPLS-TP > label switched paths, pseudo wires and Sections using Bidirectional > Forwarding Detection. > > >The file can be obtained via >http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi/ > >IESG discussion can be tracked via >http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi/ > > >No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. >_______________________________________________ >mpls mailing list >mpls@xxxxxxxx >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > > >_______________________________________________ >mpls mailing list >mpls@xxxxxxxx >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf