Sometimes when two worlds come together, you don't get common standards right away. For the SONET/SDH example, it has been pointed out that starting from digital voice, we had different regions of the world choosing A-law or mu-law encoding, then 24-channel vs 30-channel PDH hierarchies. SONET and SDH evolved originally as optimized transport for the 24-channel and 30-channel hierarchies, but we were able to push them into common physical layer interfaces for the various bit-rates, and today what we call SDH is really a superset of the two multiplexing hierarchies, so the same box can be sold anywhere in the world and can be configured to support the hierarchy of the local network. When "data friendly" features were added to SONET/SDH (VCAT, GFP, LCAS), these were defined once and not in multiple regional variants. When we finally reached OTN, we were able to agree to develop a single, global standard from the start. For MPLS-TP, we have the coming together of the transport world with the Internet world. We have succeeded in driving together many aspects of this technology, but we shouldn't be too surprised that we can't get down to one variant in the very first try at bringing these together. Regards, Rui -----Original Message----- From: mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: segunda-feira, 26 de Setembro de 2011 22:58 To: mpls@xxxxxxxx Subject: [mpls] FW: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC MPLS Working Group, Please be aware of the IETF last call as shown below. The document was presented for publication as an individual RFC with IETF consensus and AD sponsorship. This draft is clearly close and relevant to the work you do, but after discussing with the chairs I came to the conclusion that it does not comment on the technical or process decisions of the MPLS working groups, and it does not attempt to make any technical evaluations or definitions within the scope of the MPLS working group. It is more of a philosophical analysis of the way the IETF approaches the "two solutions" problem with special reference to MPLS-TP OAM. Thus, I am accepting the document as AD Sponsored rather than running it through the MPLS working group. My reasoning is that the working group has got plenty to do working on technical issues without being diverted into wider IETF philosophy. As an AD Sponsored I-D it is subject to a four week IETF last call. That is plenty of opportunity for everyone to comment and express their views. Please send your comments to the IETF mailing list as described below, or (in exceptional circumstances) direct to the IESG. Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-announce-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-announce- > bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of The IESG > Sent: 26 September 2011 20:43 > To: IETF-Announce > Subject: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The > Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC > > > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider > the following document: > - 'The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM' > <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.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 2011-10-24. 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 > > The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is a profile of MPLS technology > for use in transport network deployments. That is, MPLS-TP is a set > of functions and features selected from the wider MPLS toolset and > applied in a consistent way to meet the needs and requirements of > operators of packet transport networks. > > During the process of development of the profile, additions to the > MPLS toolset have been made to ensure that the tools available met > the requirements. These additions were motivated by MPLS-TP, but form > part of the wider MPLS toolset such that any of them could be used in > any MPLS deployment. > > One major set of additions provides enhanced support for Operations, > Administration, and Maintenance (OAM). This enables fault management > and performance monitoring to the level needed in a transport > network. Many solutions and protocol extensions have been proposed to > address these OAM requirements, and this document sets out the > reasons for selecting a single, coherent set of solutions for > standardization. > > > The file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf