I do not support this draft. a) Its "SONET and SDH" section is wrong. (Please refer to H. van Helvoort's, A. Reid's, M. Betts's comments.)
b) It doesn't really add anything to RFC 1958. (Please refer to R. Winter's comments.) In RFC1958: "If a previous design, in the Internet context or ELSEWHERE, has successfully solved the same problem, choose the same solution unless there is a good technical reason not to". We didn't choose the elsewhere designs (ETH, T-MPLS; please check deployment numbers in other emails on this subject) on the grounds of backwards compatibility, but didn't choose the internet context design either, once the chosen IETF designs won't be backwards compatible with existing ones. (Please refer to the Jul2011 discussion regarding cc-cv-rdi draft) c) To the question "which requirement stated in the RFCs are not satisfied by the singe OAM solution defined in IETF?": For instance, RFC5860 2.2.3: " The protocol solution(s) developed to perform this function proactively MUST also apply to [...] point-to-point unidirectional LSPs, and point-to- multipoint LSPs." (Please refer f.i. to the Jul2011 discussion regarding cc-cv-rdi draft) d) I do agree with the supporters of this draft on "we are going in circles again". There are enough people supporting both solutions. Those supporting the ITU-T approach don't preclude the IETF's, although not subscribing it. Those supporting the IETF's do preclude ITU-T's. I don't understand the goal and time waste. As a final client, i don't understand why people want to preclude me of a valuable option. Regards, Rui -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: segunda-feira, 26 de Setembro de 2011 22:58 To: [email protected] Subject: [mpls] FW: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC MPLS Working Group, Please be aware of the IETF last call as shown below. The document was presented for publication as an individual RFC with IETF consensus and AD sponsorship. This draft is clearly close and relevant to the work you do, but after discussing with the chairs I came to the conclusion that it does not comment on the technical or process decisions of the MPLS working groups, and it does not attempt to make any technical evaluations or definitions within the scope of the MPLS working group. It is more of a philosophical analysis of the way the IETF approaches the "two solutions" problem with special reference to MPLS-TP OAM. Thus, I am accepting the document as AD Sponsored rather than running it through the MPLS working group. My reasoning is that the working group has got plenty to do working on technical issues without being diverted into wider IETF philosophy. As an AD Sponsored I-D it is subject to a four week IETF last call. That is plenty of opportunity for everyone to comment and express their views. Please send your comments to the IETF mailing list as described below, or (in exceptional circumstances) direct to the IESG. Thanks, Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:ietf-announce- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of The IESG > Sent: 26 September 2011 20:43 > To: IETF-Announce > Subject: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The > Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational 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 > [email protected] mailing lists by 2011-10-24. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to [email protected] 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 > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
