RE: Request to publish draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt

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

 



Huub, hi

I would like to thank you for this rather informative review of the
draft that you are shepherding. However, I am confused by some of the
omissions of your information -

1. In answer to question 1.b you point out that "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..."  So the direct answer to
the question 
should have been "NO - there was not sufficient review of the document."

2. In answer to question 1.f you somehow failed to point out that a
previous version of this request that was presented in
draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn-01, was presented in the Routing Area open
meeting and "extreme discontent" was voiced by several participants,
albeit alongside the support of several participants.  However, again
the direct answer to the question should have been - based on the
discussion within the Routing Area - YES, extreme discontent was
expressed in the past to this request.

3. In answer to question 1.k you voice your opinion, as document
shepherd, " 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."  This, I think should be first verified with
the relevant WG-Chairs (that in my opinion could be both MPLS, whose
protocol this document wishes to monitor, and PWE3, who are the "owners"
of the registry that the document wishes to allocate a codepoint from.)
before making such a statement.  This decision is within the realm of
their responsibilities, I believe.

Thanx
Yaacov Weingarten
Nokia Siemens Networks

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
ext Huub helvoort
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 11:17 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


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