Loa, I still do not understand how you can claim that the words from slide 113 of RFC 5317 and quoted in section 1.1 of draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01:
"It is technically feasible that the existing MPLS architecture can be extended to meet the requirements of a Transport profile The architecture allows for a single OAM technology for LSPs, PWE and a deeply nested network" Represent a decision or even a recommendation. However, if as you insist it was a "decision" can you explain why the IETF chose to ignore this "decision" and initially defined different encapsulations for the PW and LSP OAM and subsequently defined a second encapsulation for PW OAM. So that now we have two encapsulations for OAM in MPLS-TP PWs. Regards, Malcolm Loa Andersson <[email protected]> 14/10/2011 10:37 AM To [email protected] cc [email protected] Subject Re: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC - comment 2 Malocolm, there is no conflict - the one OAM solution was and is a decision. /Loa On 2011-10-14 15:59, [email protected] wrote: > Loa, > > I have added - comment 2 to the subject line and deleted all the other > comments. > > I cannot find section 1.1 or the text "one OAM solution" in the PDF > version of RFC 5317. > > The last paragraph of section 1 states: > > In the case of a conflict between the summary and the > slides, the slides take precedence. Since those slides were the > basis of an important agreement between the IETF and the ITU-T, it > should further be noted that in the event that the PDF version of the > slides differs from those emailed to ITU-T and IETF management on 18 > April 2008 by the co-chairs of the JWT, the emailed slides take > precedence. > > The full quote from slide 12 is: > > This presentation is a collection of assumptions, discussion points and > > decisions that the combined group has had during the months of March and > > April, 2008 > > This represents the **agreed upon starting point** for the technical > > analysis of the T-MPLS requirements from the ITU-T and the MPLS > > architecture to meet those requirements > > I must also remind you that the JWT did not have the power to make > decision for the ITU or IETF as stated in TD515/PLEN that established > the ad group on MPLS-TP and the JWT: > > "The Joint Working Team is the union of the ad hoc and design teams. It > has no official affiliation or status with either the ITU-T or the IETF > but will provide a forum for open communication and cooperative work" > > This is aligned with normal process in the IETF where a design team > cannot make decisions for a Working Group. > > Therefore, my proposed clarification of the context of the "one > solution" statement should be included in > draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations. > > > Regards, > > Malcolm > > > > *Loa Andersson <[email protected]>* > > 14/10/2011 02:15 AM > > > To > [email protected] > cc > [email protected] > Subject > Re: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The > Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to > Informational RFC > > > > > > > > > All, > > juat one small comment on how "slide 12" of the JWT report is (mis)used > in this debate. > > The text says: > > " This presentation is a collection of assumptions, discussion points > and decisions that the combined group has had during the months of > March and April, 2008." > > The paragraph is correct and it says that the presentation includes > - assumptions > - discussion points > - decisions > > The statement on "one OAM solution" from section 1.1 of RFC5317 clearly > falls into the *decision* category. As such it rather support > publishing the draft rather than indicating that we shouldn't. > > /Loa > > On 2011-10-14 04:31, [email protected] wrote: > > Below are my comments on this draft, these are in addition to the > > comments that I have provided previously. I also support the comments > > that propose the deletion of sections 4, 5 and 6. > > > > I have numbered my comments (1-12) to simplify identification for those > > who wish to respond. > > > > I do not support approval of this draft in its current form. > > > > Regards, > > > > Malcolm > > > > > > > 2) Quote from RFC5317 > > > > Section 1.1 includes the following: > > [RFC5317] includes the analysis that "it is technically feasible that > > the existing MPLS architecture can be extended to meet the > > requirements of a Transport profile, and that the architecture allows > > for a single OAM technology for LSPs, PWs, and a deeply nested > > network." > > > > The context of this quote from slide 113 should be clarified; slide 12 > > states of RFC 5317 states: > > > > This presentation is a collection of assumptions, discussion points and > > decisions that the combined group has had during the months of March and > > April, 2008 > > This represents the *agreed upon starting point* for the technical > > analysis of the T-MPLS requirements from the ITU-T and the MPLS > > architecture to meet those requirements > > > > Proposal: Insert the following text before the quoted text: > > > > [RFC 5317] provides a collection of assumptions, discussion points and > > decisions that the JWT has had during the months of March and April, > > 2008. This represents the agreed upon starting point for the technical > > analysis of the T-MPLS requirements from the ITU-T and the MPLS > > architecture to meet those requirements. Included in this analysis is > > the statement that "it is technically feasible that the existing MPLS > > architecture can be extended to meet the requirements of a Transport > > profile, and that the architecture allows for a single OAM technology > > for LSPs, PWs, and a deeply nested network." > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > -- > > > Loa Andersson email: [email protected] > Sr Strategy and Standards Manager [email protected] > Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13 > +46 767 72 92 13 > > -- Loa Andersson email: [email protected] Sr Strategy and Standards Manager [email protected] Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13 +46 767 72 92 13
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
