I can confirm that the draft is requesting a code point for the version of G.8113.1 that was forwarded to WTSA by SG 15, this is the same as the draft that was determined in February 2011, I am not anticipating any changes prior to the approval decision at WTSA. None of the changes in G.8113.1 that were anticipated in draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01 were implemented, I will post a new version draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point to correctly reflect the content and title on G.8113.1 and respond to the other questions later this week.
Regards,
Malcolm
| "Adrian Farrel"
<adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
09/01/2012 12:33 PM
|
|
Hi Huub and Malcolm,
I recognise that the intervening month between my original email and this one
included an SG15 meeting, Christmas, and New Year, but I had hoped for a
response by now so that we could work out what to do with the document.
In the meantime, at least my question 4 has progressed. Can you confirm that the
version of G.8113.1 for which a code point is requested is that which has been
sent to WTSA by SG15 (i.e., that which was determined), and that there are no
plans to make any updates or revisions to that document until after it has been
approved.
Thanks,
Adrian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian
> Farrel
> Sent: 09 December 2011 10:49
> To: draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Huub helvoort'
> Cc: mpls@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Questions about draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point
>
> 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