Malocolm,
there is no conflict - the one OAM solution was and is a decision.
/Loa
On 2011-10-14 15:59, Malcolm.BETTS@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Loa,
I have added - comment 2 to the subject line and deleted all the other
comments.
I cannot find section 1.1 or the text "one OAM solution" in the PDF
version of RFC 5317.
The last paragraph of section 1 states:
In the case of a conflict between the summary and the
slides, the slides take precedence. Since those slides were the
basis of an important agreement between the IETF and the ITU-T, it
should further be noted that in the event that the PDF version of the
slides differs from those emailed to ITU-T and IETF management on 18
April 2008 by the co-chairs of the JWT, the emailed slides take
precedence.
The full quote from slide 12 is:
> 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
I must also remind you that the JWT did not have the power to make
decision for the ITU or IETF as stated in TD515/PLEN that established
the ad group on MPLS-TP and the JWT:
"The Joint Working Team is the union of the ad hoc and design teams. It
has no official affiliation or status with either the ITU-T or the IETF
but will provide a forum for open communication and cooperative work"
This is aligned with normal process in the IETF where a design team
cannot make decisions for a Working Group.
Therefore, my proposed clarification of the context of the "one
solution" statement should be included in
draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations.
Regards,
Malcolm
*Loa Andersson <loa@xxxxx>*
14/10/2011 02:15 AM
To
Malcolm.BETTS@xxxxxxxxxx
cc
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
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
All,
juat one small comment on how "slide 12" of the JWT report is (mis)used
in this debate.
The text says:
" 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."
The paragraph is correct and it says that the presentation includes
- assumptions
- discussion points
- decisions
The statement on "one OAM solution" from section 1.1 of RFC5317 clearly
falls into the *decision* category. As such it rather support
publishing the draft rather than indicating that we shouldn't.
/Loa
On 2011-10-14 04:31, Malcolm.BETTS@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Below are my comments on this draft, these are in addition to the
> comments that I have provided previously. I also support the comments
> that propose the deletion of sections 4, 5 and 6.
>
> I have numbered my comments (1-12) to simplify identification for those
> who wish to respond.
>
> I do not support approval of this draft in its current form.
>
> Regards,
>
> Malcolm
>
>
> 2) Quote from RFC5317
>
> Section 1.1 includes the following:
> [RFC5317] includes the analysis that "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."
>
> The context of this quote from slide 113 should be clarified; slide 12
> states of RFC 5317 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
>
> Proposal: Insert the following text before the quoted text:
>
> [RFC 5317] provides a collection of assumptions, discussion points and
> decisions that the JWT 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. Included in this analysis is
> the statement that "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."
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--
Loa Andersson email: loa.andersson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager loa@xxxxx
Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13
+46 767 72 92 13
--
Loa Andersson email: loa.andersson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager loa@xxxxx
Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13
+46 767 72 92 13
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf