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 - comment 2

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Malcolm,

seems that you have the problem claiming text refers to "assumptions" or "discussion points", especially since the format of the text is
clearly "decision".

/Loa

On 2011-10-15 02:37, Malcolm.BETTS@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Loa,

I still do not understand how you can claim that the words from slide
113 of RFC 5317 and quoted in section 1.1 of
draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01:

"It is technically feasible that the existing MPLS architecture can be
extended to meet the requirements of a Transport profile
The architecture allows for a single OAM technology for LSPs, PWE
and a deeply nested network"

Represent a decision or even a recommendation.

However, if as you insist it was a "decision" can you explain why the
IETF chose to ignore this "decision" and initially defined different
encapsulations for the PW and LSP OAM and subsequently defined a second
encapsulation for PW OAM. So that now we have two encapsulations for OAM
in MPLS-TP PWs.

Regards,

Malcolm




*Loa Andersson <loa@xxxxx>*

14/10/2011 10:37 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 - comment 2


	





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



--


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


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]