Huub hi, I was in the closing plenary, and I heard different reasons for not approving G.8113.1. The main argument that I heard was because of lack of consensus. Best regards, Nurit From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext Huub helvoort
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 12:51 PM
To: Russ Housley; Malcolm.BETTS@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx; adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx; draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; mpls@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Questions about draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point Hello Russ,
You wrote: > My understanding is that there is not a stable agreed G.8113.1 document to reference.
> Is my understanding incorrect?
Your understanding is partially incorrect:
The draft recommendation G.8113.1 is stable, there have been no major technical
changes since it was sent to the IETF (when it still had the draft name G.tpoam)
attache to liaison: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/983/
This is also the status I reported when we did discuss this during IETF82 in Taipei.
G.8113.1 could not be approved because of the technical reason that there is
no ACh codepoint assigned. ======
Hi Adrian,
Thank you for finding time to respond to this request. As you know I was attending the same 2 week SG 15 meeting and was probably at least as busy as you given my official role in the meeting.
I will update draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point early in the new year based on the results of SG 15 the ended last Friday and your comments. I will also discussan update of the shepherd write up with Huub.
Regards,
Malcolm
Hi Malcolm and Huub,
I have squeezed a little time from the current ITU-T meeting to look at your
draft and write-up. I have also read the email threads on the IETF discussion
list and the MPLS list. Sorry that this has taken me a week to process, but your
publication request came at pretty much the worst possible time for getting me
to do this task.
I don't like proliferating threads across multiple mailing lists. On the other
hand it is difficult to ensure that all the constituencies are present, so I am
perpetuating the cross-posting.
My review of the document...
1. idnits (http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/) shows a couple of nits. I think
only one of these is real (the spurious space in a citation). The other nits are
spurious caused by citations wrapping across lines. Could you please keep a note
of the nit so that you can fix it the next time the draft is respun or so it can
be captured in an RFC Editor Note at a later stage (you don't have to post a new
revision to address this now unless you really want to).
2. This document requests a code point from a registry that contains code points
that are used equally for MPLS LSPs and pseudowires. I can't tell from the I-D
whether it is your intention that your code point would also be applicable in
both cases. What is your intention? Is this "obvious" from G.8113.1 or does it
need to be clarified?
My review of the write-up and discussions...
3. There seems to be quite a feeling on the mailing lists that this document
should be run through the MPLS working group. The write-up makes a case for
progressing it as AD sponsored. As far as I can see, the main assertions to
answer are as follows. Do you have a view on these points before I make a
decision on what to do?
a. This is a proposal to use an MPLS code point and so is part of MPLS by
definition.
b. The type of network being managed by the OAM described in G.8113.1 is an MPLS
network. Therefore, this is clearly relevant to the MPLS working .
Do you object to this going through the MPLS on principle, or were you just
hoping to save the WG the work? If the latter, and if the WG wants to look at
the draft, the easiest approach seems to be to redirect the work to the working
group.
4. G.8113.1 is clearly important to understanding to which the code point is
being put. Thus, an available and stable copy of group. G.8113.1 will be key to
the last call review of you I-D. Can you make a stable copy available (for
example, through liaison)? How does the editing work currently in progress in
the SG15 meeting affect that availability?
5. Can you clarify for me why the suggested value has been suggested. This will
help guide IANA who would normally do their allocation in a "tidy" way.
Looking forward to your reply.
Thanks,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
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