I oppose publication of this I-D in its present form. The idea of having an I-D that says two OAM solutions will cost is fine, but there are too many technical errors, especially in sections 4 and 5 (better as Brian suggested as appendices), for it to go forward as it stands. Huub, Malcolm and Andy have pointed out the errors in SONET/SDH, I would take issue with OSPF/ISIS and IPv4/IPv6. The errors aren't gross, but they add up to too many.
The sponsoring AD has given his reasons why this is an individual submission but I think that the consequence is that the document quality is too low to be published. It needs the review of a wider body of expertise, the routing area perhaps, before it is published. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "The IESG" <iesg-secret...@ietf.org> To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-annou...@ietf.org> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 9:42 PM Subject: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (TheReasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) toInformational RFC > > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider > the following document: > - 'The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM' > <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.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@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-10-24. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is a profile of MPLS technology > for use in transport network deployments. That is, MPLS-TP is a set > of functions and features selected from the wider MPLS toolset and > applied in a consistent way to meet the needs and requirements of > operators of packet transport networks. > > During the process of development of the profile, additions to the > MPLS toolset have been made to ensure that the tools available met > the requirements. These additions were motivated by MPLS-TP, but form > part of the wider MPLS toolset such that any of them could be used in > any MPLS deployment. > > One major set of additions provides enhanced support for Operations, > Administration, and Maintenance (OAM). This enables fault management > and performance monitoring to the level needed in a transport > network. Many solutions and protocol extensions have been proposed to > address these OAM requirements, and this document sets out the > reasons for selecting a single, coherent set of solutions for > standardization. > > > The file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > ietf-annou...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
