Hello,
i) I support this proposal.
Apart from the text section mentioned below, the different versions of the draft (at least the initial ones) have presented, from the available options and IMHO, Y.1731 as the readiest/closest most to requirements. On the other hand, this section looks to want being a memorandum about decisions regarding OAM, which didn't follow that option. So, it's important not to put ITU-T or MEAD in subject for that.
ii) " [RFC 6375]
augments that set of identifiers to include identifier information
in a format used by the ITU-T"
Is the intended reference [MPLS TP ITU Idents], draft-ietf-mpls-tp-itu-t-identifiers? 6375's related to packet loss and delay measurements, not to identifiers.
Regards,
Rui
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Huub van Helvoort
Sent: quarta-feira, 21 de Março de 2012 22:49
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-08.txt> (An Overview of the OAM Tool Set for MPLS based Transport Networks) to Informational RFC
IESG,
I do *NOT* support this draft unless the following changes are made:
The first paragraph of section 8 Acknowledgements has to be removed:
It is an attempt to capture history, but lacks accuracy.
Removal does not impact the technical information in the draft; the tools have evolved significantly from the strawman tools proposed in Stockholm; some members of the MEAD team (I am one of them) do not consider that an agreement on this proposal was reached.
I also request the removal of my name from this acknowledgements section since I do not support this tool set, neither as an individual nor as ITU-T Q10 rapporteur. The latter is implied by mentioning my name in the same sentence as a WG chair and ADs.
Regards, Huub.
=============
> The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching
> WG
> (mpls) to consider the following document:
> - 'An Overview of the OAM Tool Set for MPLS based Transport Networks'
> <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-08.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 2012-03-23. 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 provides an overview of the OAM toolset for MPLS based
> Transport Networks. The toolset consists of a comprehensive set of
> fault management and performance monitoring capabilities (operating
> in the data-plane) which are appropriate for transport networks as
> required in RFC 5860 and support the network and services at
> different nested levels. This overview includes a brief recap of
> MPLS-TP OAM requirements and functions, and of generic mechanisms
> created in the MPLS data plane to allow the OAM packets run in-band
> and share their fate with data packets. The protocol definitions for
> each of the MPLS-TP OAM tools are defined in separate documents (RFCs
> or Working Group drafts) which are referenced by this document.
>
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis/ballot
> /
>
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce