This document proposes an additional OAM for MPLS networks using an ACH code point. As this protocol is intended to operate and manage MPLS networks, this protocol is subject to the provisions of RFC4929 (MPLS Change Process) and must be reviewed by the MPLS WG using RFC4929. I call upon the nominated AD to redirect this work to the MPLS WG and follow the MPLS Change Process. I also agree with John's understanding that this protocol is the same as "draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-07" that was discussed in the MPLS WG. Thanks, KY -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John E Drake Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 7:17 AM To: Huub helvoort; Adrian Farrel Cc: itu-t-liaisons@xxxxxxx; draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; The IESG; Ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: RE: Request to publish draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt Huub, In your email, below, you state: "This protocol has been defined in the ITU-T and should not be considered to be a MPLS protocol and therefore should not subject to the provisions of RFC 4929." The subject protocol is used to provide OAM for MPLS networks. You seem to be saying that because this protocol was developed by the ITU, it is not subject to the provisions of RFC 4929. However, it is my understanding that RFC 4929 was put in place in order to ensure that all enhancements to MPLS are done in the IETF using the process defined in RFC 4929. Perhaps rather than asserting that it is exempt from RFC 4929, you could share the reasoning that leads you to this assertion? You also state: "It does not make any proposals to modify the MPLS data plane forwarding behaviour or of the any IETF defined protocols. Therefore, review by the MPLS WG is not required." However, it is my understanding that the subject protocol is the same as that defined in 'MPLS-TP OAM based on Y.1731' ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-07). As I am sure you are aware, that protocol was fully discussed by the MPLS working group at both the Maastricht and Beijing meetings, and was explicitly rejected by the working group. Doesn't this request for a code point for the subject protocol without review by the MPLS working group constitute an attempt to circumvent the decision made by that working group? I call on the nominated AD to redirect this work to the MPLS working group using the MPLS change process. Thanks, John > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Huub helvoort > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 1:17 PM > To: Adrian Farrel > Cc: draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; The IESG; > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Request to publish draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt > > Document Writeup for draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt > > As required by RFC-to-be draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines, this is the > current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up for individual > submissions via the IESG. > > Changes are expected over time. This version is dated February 5, 2007. > > -- > > (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the > Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the > document and, in particular, does he or she believe this > version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? > > Huub van Helvoort (Huub.van.Helvoort@xxxxxxxxxx) > Yes, I have reviewed the document and I believe it is ready for > forwarding to the IESG to be published. > > (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of > the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd > have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews > that > have been performed? > > The document was first posted on 16th October; no discussion has taken > place on any email lists. However, this draft is addressing a well > know > issue that was first brought to the attention of the IETF in a request > from the director of the ITU-T in June 2010 requesting the assignment > of > an ACh code point that would be used to run Ethernet based OAM on > MPLS-TP networks. The draft requests IANA to assign a code point from > the registry of Pseudowire Associated Channel Types. It does not make > any proposals to modify the MPLS data plane forwarding behaviour or of > the any IETF defined protocols. Therefore, review by the MPLS WG is > not > required. > > (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document > needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, > e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar > with AAA, internationalization or XML? > > No. The purpose of the document is clear and the scope is limited to > the > assignment of a code point for (restricted) use by the ITU-T. > > (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or > issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director > and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or > she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has > concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, > if > the interested community has discussed those issues and has > indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail > those concerns here. > > The issue of supporting an alternative set of OAM mechanisms for MPLS- > TP > based on Ethernet OAM has been widely discussed without reaching any > firm conclusion. Note that more than 350,000 nodes have now been > deployed with Ethernet based OAM using a code point from the > experimental range. > > (1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind > this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a > few > individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested > community as a whole understand and agree with it? > > This draft is requesting the assignment of an ACh code point that will > be used to run Ethernet based OAM on MPLS-TP networks. This protocol > has been defined in the ITU-T and should not be considered to be a MPLS > protocol and therefore should not subject to the provisions of RFC > 4929. > This request is supported by a significant number of network > operators. > However, discussion on the IETF list during the last call of > draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations indicates that other do not > support the view that aa alternative Ethernet based OAM mechanism is > required. > > (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme > discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in > separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It > should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is > entered into the ID Tracker.) > > None indicated, however see the discussion on the IETF list during the > last call of draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations. > > (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the > document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts > Checklist <http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist.html> > and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks > are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the > document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such > as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? > > No ID_nits found; the draft does not define a MIB or any protocols. > > (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and > informative? Are there normative references to documents that > are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear > state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy > for their completion? Are there normative references that are > downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list > these downward references to support the Area Director in the > Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. > > The split is appropriate; the only normative references are to > published > RFCs without any downwards references. > > (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA > consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of > the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, > are > reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the > IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a > new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of > the registry and an allocation procedure for future > registrations? Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new > registry? See [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If > the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd > conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG > can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? > > The IANA consideration section exists and is consistent. > > (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the > document that are written in a formal language, such as XML > code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in > an automated checker? > > There are no sections that use formal language. > > (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document > Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document > Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the > "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval > announcement contains the following sections: > > Technical Summary > > Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or > introduction of the document. If not, this may be an > indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or > introduction. > > This document assigns an Associated Channel Type code point for > carrying > Ethernet based Operations, Administration, and Management messages in > the MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh). > > Working Group Summary > > Was there anything in the discussion in the interested > community that is worth noting? For example, was there > controversy about particular points or were there decisions > where the consensus was particularly rough? Was the document > considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a > work item there? > > This document is an individual submission via AD sponsorship aiming to > gain IETF consensus. It is not the product of a working group. > > This document assigns an Associated Channel Type code point for > carrying > Ethernet based Operations, Administration, and Management messages in > the MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh). These OAM messages will > be > used as an alternative mechanism to support OAM functions in a MPLS-TP > network. To date more than 350,000 nodes have been deployed using this > mechanism using a code point from the experimental range. > > This document does not contain technical details of OAM for MPLS-TP > networks, and does not make any comment on the judgement of the working > groups in their technical decisions. The document is concerned with the > wider issue of IETF policy and process. > > It is the opinion of the document shepherd that discussion of this > document on the working group lists would be a distraction from the > technical protocol work that the working groups need to do. > > Document Quality > > Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a > significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement > the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special > mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that > resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document > had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media > Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In > the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request > posted? > > The Ethernet based OAM protocol that will run behind this code point > has > been implemented by at least four vendors and more than 350,000 nodes > have been deployed. Multi-vendor inter-operability test have been > completed successfully. The draft does not specify a MIB or provides > any protocol details. > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf