Huub, You say "The liaison informs the IETF that on September 16 recommendation G.8113.2 was consented in a WP3 plenary meeting. In both the Beijing Q10 expert meeting where the consent was proposed and the WP3 plenary meeting where the consent took place, there were no objections." My understanding is that the document was consented in the SG15 plenary meeting (and not in the WP3 one) with reservation from one member state. Can you please clarify why you mention that there were no objections? Is it because there was a single objection and not multiple? Also, it could be good if you share with the IETF what was the reservation about. it seems very relevant for the basis of the collaboration, isn't it? You also say: "So with this liaison LS332 the IETF was already officially informed about the consent and the fact that there is a default OAM toolset and an optional toolset." I think you should first wait for LC comments before you can claim that (1) the document is agreed and (2) that there is a default OAM toolset and an optional toolset. This is especially true as the document was presented for consent in the September 16th meeting after it was explicitly communicated that MPLS-TP will *NOT* be discussed on September 16th. I believe that there are some interested parties that could not change their plans and get to the meeting in less than one week notice. Therefore, I am not sure that the picture you have from the plenary meeting reflects the situation. We need to wait for LC comments and see the consequences. Best regards, Nurit -----Original Message----- Hello Adrian, You typed: > Yuxia wrote: > >> I also agree with Huub. >> >> As a consensus reached in Beijing meeting, mechanism using the tools defined >> for MPLS is a default tool set and another using the tools defined in > G.8013/Y.1731 >> is an optional one. > > That is a an interesting and helpful statement. Obviously, most IETF > participants were not present at this meeting: is there a possibility that this > message could be communicated to the IETF in a more official way? On October 6 a liaison was sent to the IETF, and the mpls@xxxxxxxx list with the subject: "New Liaison Statement, "LS332 - Consent of Recommendation ITU-T G.8113.2/Y.1372.2 -> MPLS" The liaison informs the IETF that on September 16 recommendation G.8113.2 was consented in a WP3 plenary meeting. In both the Beijing Q10 expert meeting where the consent was proposed and the WP3 plenary meeting where the consent took place, there were no objections. G.8113.2 is attached to the liaison and you can read in it: Scope of G.8113.2: ================== This Recommendation specifies the default mechanisms for user-plane OAM (Operations, Administration and Maintenance) in MPLS-TP networks to meet the MPLS-TP OAM requirements defined in [IETF RFC 5860]. It also specifies the MPLS-TP OAM packet formats, syntax and semantics of MPLS-TP OAM packet fields. An optional set of OAM tools based on G.8013/Y.1731 is described in G.8113.1/Y.1372.1. Annex B of G.8110.1 provides reference scenarios for the interconnection of domains that use the OAM mechanisms defined in this Recommendation and domains that normally use the OAM mechanisms defined in G.8113.1/Y.1372.1. In the Beijing ITU-T expert meeting it was also agreed to change the scope of G.8113.1 to align it with the scope of G.8113.2. Scope of G.8113.1: ================== This Recommendation specifies an optional set of mechanisms for data-plane OAM (Operations, Administration and Maintenance) in MPLS-TP networks to meet the MPLS-TP OAM requirements defined in [IETF RFC 5860]. It also specifies the MPLS-TP OAM packet formats, syntax and semantics of MPLS-TP OAM packet fields. The default set of OAM tools is described in [ITU-T G.8113.2]. The MPLS-TP OAM mechanisms described in this Recommendation are intended to be used in a Transport Network application described in Annex A of [ITU-T G.8110.1]. Annex B of [ITU-T G.8110.1] provides reference scenarios for the interconnection of domains using the OAM mechanisms defined in this Recommendation and domains using the OAM mechanisms defined in [ITU-T G.8113.2]. ===== So with this liaison LS332 the IETF was already officially informed about the consent and the fact that there is a default OAM toolset and an optional toolset. Regards, Huub. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf |
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf