Hi, I cannot support the publication of the document in its current version. I have the following concerns: • It is indicated that the channel is intended to be used to carry Ethernet based OAM messages. It is not clear why there is a need for ACH. PWs can be used to transmit Ethernet OAM. If the intention is to use the channel for OAM messages for operating MPLS-TP based networks, the IETF *already* defined a solution for MPLS-TP OAM and I expect to see first a technical *justification* why a second solution is needed. In addition, I would expect to see *references to the arguments* raised in draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations. • It is not clear what the maturity status of G.8113.1 is. It seems that the document was not approved by SG15 and the discussion was deferred to WTSA. This indicates that there is *no consensus* for the approval of G.8113.1. A code point should not be allocated before a consensus/decision is reached in the ITU-T and before the document is mature and approved. I do not think it is appropriate to allocate a code point and try to force a resolution in the ITU-T. • I find a contradiction in the draft. In one place it is mentioned: "These Ethernet based OAM messages and procedures, address the OAM functional requirements defined in [RFC5860]. Other message types should not be carried behind this code point." In another place it is mentioned: "all ITU-T Recommendations are subject to revision. Therefore, the code point allocated by this document may be used for future versions of [G.8113.1].". The last statement opens the door for the definition of additional messages in G.8113.1 in the following versions, for example, for APS (supporting linear or ring protection mechanisms) and by this creates two solutions for other mechanisms as well. The use of the code point can go much beyond its original purpose and it will hide other messages....a code point should not be allocated at this point at all, but specifically not for unknown usage that may be defined in future versions of G.8113.1. Best regards, Nurit > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-announce-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-announce- > bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of The IESG > Sent: 22 February 2012 15:13 > To: IETF-Announce > Subject: Last Call: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an > Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to > Informational RFC > > > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider > the following document: > - 'Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T > Ethernet based OAM' > <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> as an Informational RFC > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2012-03-21. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > 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). > > The file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list |
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf