----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott O Bradner" <sob@xxxxxxxxx> To: "IETF Discussion" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 6:30 PM > I'm having a hard time understanding just what this document is trying to do Scott Provide another instalment in the long running and yet-to-be resolved disagreement as to how additional OAM should be added to MPLS to bring it up to the level required in a Transport Network by network operators. Look at the archives of this list for a post by Russ 2Mar2011 for an earlier instalment. The MPLS-TP list has a thread 'Draft: Response to Updated draft Recommendation G.tpoam [Ref043.02]' in Jan 2011 which precedes that. The same list has ' MPLS WG slides from CMCC' in November 2010 which says " Actually, China Mobile has introduced 38,000 PTN equipments based on pre-standard G.8114 in 2009. China Mobile will introduce more than 110,000 PTN equipments based on draft-bhh-MPLS-TP-OAM-Y1731 in 2010." (draft-bhh being the proposal for OAM that the IETF did not adopt for Packet Transport Networks). and a thread at the same time 'How can ITU-T experts contribute to the work on MPLS-TP?' which I think the crux of the problem. IETF has a way of working, and IETF claims technical control over MPLS code points, but those supporting draft-bhh have failed to achieve agreement, in the way that the IETF defines agreement (which is not the way in which other SDOs define agreement), that theirs should be the way forward to add the necessary functionality to MPLS OAM. So we have two technical solutions; perhaps they will coexist, perhaps the marketplace will decide etc, as this I-D says. It is not a happy state of affairs, and there is no technical solution. Quite how this will play out is hard to see but in a few years time, I fear we will look back and say 'if only'. Tom Petch > > I understand from the title that it is supposed to be telling the reader why a single OAM > solution is a good idea for MPLS-TP > > if that is the case I'm not all that sure what the purpose of sections 4 and 5 are for - they seem > to be exploring land outside the reservation - how about just addressing the topic in the title? > > Scott > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf