On Jan 12, 2012, at 3:18 PM, John E Drake wrote:
> Snipped, comments inline.
>
> 3. There seems to be quite a feeling on the mailing lists that this document
> should be run through the MPLS working group. The write-up makes a case for
> progressing it as AD sponsored. As far as I can see, the main assertions to
> answer are as follows. Do you have a view on these points before I make a
> decision on what to do?
>
> a. This is a proposal to use an MPLS code point and so is part of MPLS by
> definition.
>
> b. The type of network being managed by the OAM described in G.8113.1 is an
> MPLS
> network. Therefore, this is clearly relevant to the MPLS working .
>
> Do you object to this going through the MPLS on principle, or were you just
> hoping to save the WG the work? If the latter, and if the WG wants to look at
> the draft, the easiest approach seems to be to redirect the work to the
> working
> group.
>
> [MB] G.8113.1 supports a subset of the functions defined in
> draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-08. The -00 version was posted in March 2009,
> the draft was presented at several meetings in 2009 and early 2010 and had
> extensive discussion on the MPLS mailing list. However, the MPLS WG have, by
> rough consensus, adopted a different approach. Therefore, further review by
> the MPLS WG is of little value.
>
> [JD] Um, I don’t think so.
>
> Since, as you state above, G.8113.1 is effectively draft-bhh and since
> draft-bhh was explicitly rejected by the MPLS WG, your draft, which requests
> a code point for G.8113.1, is basically an attempt to subvert the decision by
> the MPLS WG to reject draft-bhh by attempting to bypass the WG with an
> individual submission.
>
> So, I think it is clear that your draft belongs in the MPLS WG.
>
> Incidentally, the MPLS/GMPLS change process was put in place in reaction to
> the publication of another individual submission, RFC3474, which was
> completely non-interoperable with standard RSVP, a surprisingly similar
> situation.
>
Well said John. I couldn't have put it any better myself, and so agree
with that statement %100.
--Tom
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
