To: erminio.ottone...@libero.it; l...@pi.nu; Rui Costa
Cc: m...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; IETF-Announce
Subject: RE: [mpls] R: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt
(Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect
indication for MPLS Transport Profile
Backwards compatibility
This was the main argument risen to ground MPLS-TP OAM on BFD. It's not a
better argument than grounding MPLS-TP OAM on 1731 due to its ETH deployment
plus coherence with SDH, OTN, as defended by ITU-T.
For reasons like the above, however, MPLS-TP BFD won't be
; IETF-Announce
Cc: m...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [mpls] R: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt
(Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect
indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard
Hi Erminio:
snipped
Several service providers regarded
To: erminio.ottone...@libero.it; l...@pi.nu; Rui Costa
Cc: m...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; IETF-Announce
Subject: RE: [mpls] R: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt
(Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect
indication for MPLS Transport Profile
Backwards compatibility
This was the main argument risen to ground MPLS-TP OAM on BFD. It's not a
better argument than grounding MPLS-TP OAM on 1731 due to its ETH deployment
plus coherence with SDH, OTN, as defended by ITU-T.
For reasons like the above, however, MPLS-TP BFD won't be
To: erminio.ottone...@libero.it; l...@pi.nu; Rui Costa
Cc: m...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; IETF-Announce
Subject: RE: [mpls] R: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt
(Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect
indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed
: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-
05.txt (Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and
Remote Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed
Standard
Hi Erminio:
Two of the three document editors were present at SG15 plenary in
February where
; ietf@ietf.org; IETF-
Announce
Cc: m...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [mpls] R: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-
05.txt (Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and
Remote Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed
Standard
Hi Erminio:
snipped
Several service
[mailto:david.i.al...@ericsson.com]
Sent: quarta-feira, 6 de Julho de 2011 19:25
To: erminio.ottone...@libero.it; Rui Costa; ietf@ietf.org; IETF-
Announce
Cc: m...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [mpls] R: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-
05.txt (Proactive Connectivity Verification
-rdi- 05.txt (Proactive Connectivity
Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect indication for
MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard
Hi Erminio:
Two of the three document editors were present at SG15 plenary in
February where the comments originated. The revised meeting
2011 19:25
To: erminio.ottone...@libero.it; Rui Costa; ietf@ietf.org; IETF-
Announce
Cc: m...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [mpls] R: Re: Last Call:
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi- 05.txt (Proactive Connectivity
Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect indication for
MPLS Transport
Subject: RE: [mpls] R: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-
05.txt (Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and
Remote Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed
Standard
Hi Erminio:
Two of the three document editors were present at SG15 plenary
Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-
05.txt (Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and
Remote Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed
Standard
Hi Erminio:
snipped
Several service providers regarded this draft as not meeting their
transport networks' needs
@ietf.org; IETF-
Announce
Cc: m...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [mpls] R: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-
rdi-
05.txt (Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and
Remote Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed
Standard
Hi Erminio:
snipped
-tp-cc-cv-rdi-
05.txt (Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and
Remote Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed
Standard
Hi Erminio:
snipped
Several service providers regarded this draft as not meeting their
transport networks' needs.
E This is a true
To: erminio.ottone...@libero.it; l...@pi.nu; Rui Costa
Cc: m...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; IETF-Announce
Subject: RE: [mpls] R: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-
rdi-
05.txt (Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check
and
Remote Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile
Version -04 of the document was published June 28th.
The publication request for draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi was sent
June 29th.
So when the WG LC to confirm the LC comment resolution has been launched?
The proto write-up says:
It has also passed a working roup call to
The way this draft has been developed is a bit strange.
The poll for its adoption as a WG document was halted by the MPLS WG chair
because it is not possible to judge consensus:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg04502.html
The lack of consensus was motivated by serious
: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt
(Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect
indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard
Hi Erminio:
snipped
Several service providers regarded this draft as not meeting their
transport networks' needs.
E
Hi Rui:
The comments were not ignored, the resolution of the Q10 comments as well as
those collected from the MPLS WG was presented at the last IETF. My spreadsheet
from which that report was generated and has been augmented to include the BFD
WG comments is available at
All,
Since someone has commented about the process used for resolving
questions on
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi I am supplying some details below.
The history of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi working group review
process is:
On February 3rd 2011 the working group last call was issued
on
IMHO and for the record:
ITU-T comments regarding this draft haven't been discussed with ITU-T but were
simply ignored. No LS describing these comments' resolution was sent.
Several service providers regarded this draft as not meeting their transport
networks' needs.
[The v03
22 matches
Mail list logo