Re: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

[Malcolm.BETTS@xxxxxxxxxx]

Russ,

You may not be fully aware of the context
of the statement in RFC 5317:

As the co-chair of the JTW and co-editor
of the JWT report I must point out the context of the text that you have
quoted:

First, the text is on slide 113, slide
12 states:
This presentation is a collection of
assumptions, discussion points and decisions that the combined group has
had during the months of March and April, 2008
This represents the agreed upon starting
point for the technical analysis of the T-MPLS requirements from the ITU-T
and the MPLS architecture to meet those requirements

Second:  The discussion point that
drove the text on slide 113 was the consideration that PWs and LSPs may
have different OAM.  The reality is that the solution standardized
uses different encapsulations for the PW (no GAL) and LSP (uses the GAL).

Regards,

Malcolm

Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx

08/10/2011 11:02 AM

To	IETF <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
cc
Subject	Re: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt>        (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM)        to        Informational RFC

I support publication of this draft, although the
SONET discussion could be discarded.  Also, I would like to see a
reference to RFC 5921 in the introduction.

RFC 5317 calls for one, and only one, protocol solution.  At least
that is how I read JWT Agreement.  The most relevant text seems to
be in Section 9:

  They stated that in their view, it is technically feasible that
the
  existing MPLS architecture can be extended to meet the requirements
  of a Transport profile, and that the architecture allows for a single
  OAM technology for LSPs, PWs, and a deeply nested network.

Since the publication of RFC 5317, the MPLS WG consensus continues to be
that only one OAM solution should become a standard.

Russ

On Oct 5, 2011, at 11:02 PM, Rui Costa wrote:

> c) To the question "which requirement stated in the RFCs are
not satisfied by the singe OAM solution defined in IETF?":  
              
> For instance, RFC5860 2.2.3: " The protocol solution(s) developed
to perform this function            
    
> proactively MUST also apply to [...] point-to-point unidirectional
LSPs, and point-to-              
  
> multipoint LSPs."          
      

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf