The technical concern raised during the WG poll has not been resolved so the
history definetely matters.
Quoting RFC5921:
There are thus two objectives for MPLS-TP:
1. To enable MPLS to be deployed in a transport network and operated
in a similar manner to existing transport technologies.
2. To enable MPLS to support packet transport services with a
similar degree of predictability to that found in existing
transport networks.
Based on the extensive comments provided by transport operators and ITU-T
community, the solution in this draft is useless in case 1.
The fact that the solution in this draft is not backward compatible with
existing IP/MPLS BFD implementations means that this solution is also uselesee
in case 2.
Are there other undocumented use cases for MPLS-TP deployments?
>----Messaggio originale----
>Da: nurit.sprecher@xxxxxxx
>Data: 7-lug-2011 11.59
>A: <erminio.ottone_69@xxxxxxxxx>, <RCosta@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <ietf@xxxxxxxx>,
"IETF-Announce"<ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx>
>Cc: <mpls@xxxxxxxx>
>Ogg: RE: [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
>
>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?
>
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf