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

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

 



> I have very strong doubts about all the issues mentioned in sections 4 and 5

I have comments on 
  4.2 TDM PWs, 
  4.3 Codecs, and 
  4.4 MPLS signaling protocols.

For TDM PWs the IETF followed its tao of requiring one MUST mode (RFC 4553)
and allowing 2 MAY modes (RFCs 5086 and 5087). However, far from being a resounding
triumph, this meant that a method considered inadequate by all who really understood the issues 
was mandated, while too equally adequate alternatives became optional.
So this example actually shows a negative aspect of the procedure.

Regarding the Code issue, multiple proposals were submitted,
and the resolution was to mold two of them into a new combined codec with pieces of each.
So this example is not relevant at all.

Regarding CR-LDP vs. RSVP, once again there were two pre-existing solutions,
and it was decided not to do any new work on one of them.
But this left us with 2 mandatory to implement protocols (LDP and RSVP-TE)
rather than a decision for CR-LDP which would have left a single mandatory protocol.
So this actually a counter-example to the tao of having a single mandatory mode.

Y(J)S


_______________________________________________
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]