RE: [mpls] Questions about draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point

["Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <nurit.sprecher@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I fully agree with John and Tom.

G.8113.1 intends to provide an OAM solution for MPLS-TP networks and the discussion on your draft completely belongs in the MPLS WG and also in the PWE3 WG.  

Two more points:

·         Malcolm, you say that that the requested code point is not limited to G.8113.1..."other uses are not prohibited by this draft." I think it should be very clear for what exactly use it is requested.

·         Malcolm, you mention that the value of the code point corresponds to the Ethertype used for Ethernet OAM....are you sure you approached the appropriate organization for the code point you are looking for? It seems that you either need to approach the IEEE and look for an EtherType or simply use PWs to transmit Ethernet OAM.

Best regards,

Nurit

 

 

From: mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext Thomas Nadeau
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:30 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: mpls@xxxxxxxx; draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [mpls] Questions about draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point

 

 

On Jan 12, 2012, at 3:18 PM, John E Drake wrote:

Snipped, comments inline.

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.

[MB]  G.8113.1 supports a subset of the functions defined in draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-08.  The -00 version was posted in March 2009, the draft was presented at several meetings in 2009 and early 2010 and had extensive discussion on the MPLS mailing list.  However, the MPLS WG have, by rough consensus, adopted a different approach.  Therefore, further review by the MPLS WG is of little value. 

[JD]   Um, I don’t think so. 

Since, as you state above, G.8113.1 is  effectively draft-bhh and since draft-bhh was explicitly rejected by the MPLS WG, your draft, which requests a code point for G.8113.1, is basically an attempt to subvert the decision by the MPLS WG to reject draft-bhh by attempting to bypass the WG with an individual submission. 

So, I think it  is clear that your draft belongs in the MPLS WG. 

Incidentally, the MPLS/GMPLS change process was put in place in reaction to the publication of another individual submission, RFC3474, which was completely non-interoperable with standard RSVP, a surprisingly similar situation.

 

            Well said John. I couldn't have put it any better myself, and so agree with that statement %100.

 

            --Tom

 

 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf