Subject: ITU-T Beijing meeting [Was: 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]

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 10:43:07 +0100

Yuxia wrote:

> I also agree with Huub. 
>
> As a consensus reached in Beijing meeting, mechanism using the tools defined
> for MPLS is a default tool set and another using the tools defined in
G.8013/Y.1731
> is an optional one. 

That is a an interesting and helpful statement. Obviously, most IETF
participants were not present at this meeting: is there a possibility that this
message could be communicated to the IETF in a more official way?

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:20:06 -0400

Adrian,

A similar statement is already included in draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn-01

5.3. LSP or PW originating in a PTN network and terminating in a PSN
   network

   In this case the PW (or LSP) originates (or terminates) in a PTN and
   terminates (or originates) in a PSN.  The default OAM for the end to
   end LSP or PW is PSN.
This could be restated to avoid use of the terms PSN and PTN as:

Any LSP or PW that interconnects between a domain that uses the MPLS tool 
set defined in [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis] and a domain that normally 
uses the Ethernet tools defined in ITU-T Recommendation [G.8113.1] must 
use the MPLS tool set.

I also noted a helpful response from Ross Callon indicating that the IETF 
has a history of documenting "pre-standard" tools that are widely 
deployed.  Allocation of a ACH code point to the ITU for use only for 
Ethernet OAM carried in the MPLS ACH.  With a proviso that it must not be 
used as a mechanism to carry other messages or protocols "hiding" behind 
the ACH Type. Therefore, only the messages and procedures that address the 
OAM requirements defined in [RFC 5860], as defined in the ITU-T 
Recommendation [G.8113.1], could be carried using this code point.

Would it be helpful to respin draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn along these lines 
to recognize the already widespread deployment of MPLS-TP using Ethernet 
based OAM pdus and constrain/simplify the rules for interconnection?

Regards,

Malcolm

"Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]> 
10/10/2011 05:43 AM
Please respond to
<[email-masked]>

To
<[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
cc
"'IETF Discussion'" <[email-masked]>
Subject
ITU-T Beijing meeting [Was: 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]

G.8013/Y.1731

That is a an interesting and helpful statement. Obviously, most IETF
participants were not present at this meeting: is there a possibility that 
this
message could be communicated to the IETF in a more official way?

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:30:05 +0100

Hello Malcolm,

> A similar statement is already included in draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn-01 

The statement I found interesting was about consensus reached in an ITU-T
meeting. I don't find this recorded in the Internet-Draft you pointed to.

I asked whether there is a possibility that this message could be communicated
to the IETF in a more official way.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

From: Huub van Helvoort <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 21:50:30 +0200

Hello Adrian,

> message could be communicated to the IETF in a more official way?

On October 6 a liaison was sent to the IETF, and the [email-masked]
list with the subject: "New Liaison Statement, "LS332 - Consent of
Recommendation ITU-T G.8113.2/Y.1372.2 -> MPLS"

The liaison informs the IETF that on September 16 recommendation
G.8113.2 was consented in a WP3 plenary meeting.

In both the Beijing Q10 expert meeting where the consent was proposed
and the WP3 plenary meeting where the consent took place, there were
no objections.

G.8113.2 is attached to the liaison and you can read in it:

Scope of G.8113.2:
==================
This Recommendation specifies the default mechanisms for user-plane
OAM (Operations, Administration and Maintenance) in MPLS-TP networks
to meet the MPLS-TP OAM requirements defined in [IETF RFC 5860]. It
also specifies the MPLS-TP OAM packet formats, syntax and semantics
of MPLS-TP OAM packet fields. An optional set of OAM tools based on
G.8013/Y.1731 is described in G.8113.1/Y.1372.1. Annex B of G.8110.1
provides reference scenarios for the interconnection of domains that
use the OAM mechanisms defined in this Recommendation and domains that
normally use the OAM mechanisms defined in G.8113.1/Y.1372.1.

In the Beijing ITU-T expert meeting it was also agreed to change the
scope of G.8113.1 to align it with the scope of G.8113.2.

Scope of G.8113.1:
==================
This Recommendation specifies an optional set of mechanisms for
data-plane OAM (Operations, Administration and Maintenance) in
MPLS-TP networks to meet the MPLS-TP OAM requirements defined in
[IETF RFC 5860]. It also specifies the MPLS-TP OAM packet formats,
syntax and semantics of MPLS-TP OAM packet fields. The default set
of OAM tools is described in [ITU-T G.8113.2]. The MPLS-TP OAM
mechanisms described in this Recommendation are intended to be used in a 
Transport Network application described in Annex A of [ITU-T G.8110.1]. 
Annex B of [ITU-T G.8110.1] provides reference scenarios for the 
interconnection of domains using the OAM mechanisms defined in this 
Recommendation and domains using the OAM mechanisms defined in [ITU-T 
G.8113.2].

=====
So with this liaison LS332 the IETF was already officially informed
about the consent and the fact that there is a default OAM toolset
and an optional toolset.

Regards, Huub.

---

From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 22:03:11 +0200

Huub,

You say 

"The liaison informs the IETF that on September 16 recommendation
G.8113.2 was consented in a WP3 plenary meeting. In both the Beijing Q10
expert meeting where the consent was proposed and the WP3 plenary
meeting where the consent took place, there were no objections."

My understanding is that the document was consented in the SG15 plenary
meeting (and not in the WP3 one) with reservation from one member state.
Can you please clarify why you mention that there were no objections? Is
it because there was a single objection and not multiple? 

Also, it could be good if you share with the IETF what was the
reservation about. it seems very relevant for the basis of the
collaboration, isn't it?

You also say: 

"So with this liaison LS332 the IETF was already officially informed
about the consent and the fact that there is a default OAM toolset and
an optional toolset."

I think you should first wait for LC comments before you can claim that
(1) the document is agreed and (2) that there is a default OAM toolset
and an optional toolset. This is especially true as the document was
presented for consent in the September 16th meeting after it was
explicitly communicated that MPLS-TP will *NOT* be discussed on
September 16th. I believe that there are some interested parties that
could not change their plans and get to the meeting in less than one
week notice. Therefore, I am not sure that the picture you have from the
plenary meeting reflects the situation. We need to wait for LC comments
and see the consequences. 

Best regards,

Nurit

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
ext Huub van Helvoort
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 9:50 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: 'IETF Discussion'
Subject: Re: ITU-T Beijing meeting [Was: Re: Last
Call:<draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt>(The Reasons for
Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) toInformational RFC]

Hello Adrian,

 

no objections.

Scope of G.8113.2:

==================

Scope of G.8113.1:

==================

G.8113.2].

=====

and an optional toolset.

Regards, Huub.

_______________________________________________

Ietf mailing list

[email-masked]

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf