Subject: Request to publish draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt

From: Huub helvoort <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 21:17:16 +0000

Document Writeup for draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt

As required by RFC-to-be draft-iesg-sponsoring-guidelines, this is the
current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up for individual
submissions via the IESG.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated February 5, 2007.

--

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Huub van Helvoort ([email-masked])
Yes, I have reviewed the document and I believe it is ready for
forwarding to the IESG to be published.

  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key members of
        the interested community and others? Does the Document Shepherd
        have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
        have been performed?

The document was first posted on 16th October; no discussion has taken
place on any email lists.  However, this draft is addressing a well know
issue that was first brought to the attention of the IETF in a request
from the director of the ITU-T in June 2010 requesting the assignment of
an ACh code point that would be used to run Ethernet based OAM on
MPLS-TP networks.  The draft requests IANA to assign a code point from
the registry of Pseudowire Associated Channel Types.  It does not make
any proposals to modify the MPLS data plane forwarding behaviour or of
the any IETF defined protocols.  Therefore, review by the MPLS WG is not
required.

  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar
        with AAA, internationalization or XML?

No. The purpose of the document is clear and the scope is limited to the
assignment of a code point for (restricted) use by the ITU-T.

  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
        issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
        and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or
        she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has
        concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if
        the interested community has discussed those issues and has
        indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail
        those concerns here.

The issue of supporting an alternative set of OAM mechanisms for MPLS-TP
based on Ethernet OAM has been widely discussed without reaching any
firm conclusion.  Note that more than 350,000 nodes have now been
deployed with Ethernet based OAM using a code point from the
experimental range.

  (1.e) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind
        this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
        individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
        community as a whole understand and agree with it?

This draft is requesting the assignment of an ACh code point that will
be used to run Ethernet based OAM on MPLS-TP networks.  This protocol
has been defined in the ITU-T and should not be considered to be a MPLS
protocol and therefore should not subject to the provisions of RFC 4929.
 This request is supported by a significant number of network operators.
However, discussion on the IETF list during the last call of
draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations indicates that other do not
support the view that aa alternative Ethernet based OAM mechanism is
required.

  (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
        should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
        entered into the ID Tracker.)

None indicated, however see the discussion on the IETF list during the
last call of draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations.

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts
        Checklist <http://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist.html>
        and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks
        are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the
        document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such
        as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

No ID_nits found; the draft does not define a MIB or any protocols.

  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative? Are there normative references to documents that
        are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
        state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy
        for their completion? Are there normative references that are
        downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list
        these downward references to support the Area Director in the
        Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The split is appropriate; the only normative references are to published
RFCs without any downwards references.

  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of
        the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are
        reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the
        IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a
        new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of
        the registry and an allocation procedure for future 
        registrations? Does it suggested a reasonable name for the new
        registry? See [I-D.narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis]. If
        the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

The IANA consideration section exists and is consistent.

  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
        an automated checker?

There are no sections that use formal language.

  (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
        Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
        Announcement Writeup? Recent examples can be found in the
        "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
        announcement contains the following sections:

    Technical Summary

        Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or
        introduction of the document. If not, this may be an
        indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or
        introduction.

This document assigns an Associated Channel Type code point for carrying
Ethernet based Operations, Administration, and Management messages in
the MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh).

    Working Group Summary

        Was there anything in the discussion in the interested
        community that is worth noting? For example, was there
        controversy about particular points or were there decisions
        where the consensus was particularly rough? Was the document
        considered in any WG, and if so, why was it not adopted as a
        work item there?

This document is an individual submission via AD sponsorship aiming to
gain IETF consensus. It is not the product of a working group.

This document assigns an Associated Channel Type code point for carrying
Ethernet based Operations, Administration, and Management messages in
the MPLS Generic Associated Channel (G-ACh).  These OAM messages will be
used as an alternative mechanism to support OAM functions in a MPLS-TP
network.  To date more than 350,000 nodes have been deployed using this
mechanism using a code point from the experimental range.

This document does not contain technical details of OAM for MPLS-TP
networks, and does not make any comment on the judgement of the working
groups in their technical decisions. The document is concerned with the
wider issue of IETF policy and process.

It is the opinion of the document shepherd that discussion of this
document on the working group lists would be a distraction from the
technical protocol work that the working groups need to do.

    Document Quality

        Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
        significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement
        the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special
        mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that
        resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document
        had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media
        Type or other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In
        the case of a Media Type review, on what date was the request
        posted?

The Ethernet based OAM protocol that will run behind this code point has
been implemented by at least four vendors and more than 350,000 nodes
have been deployed.  Multi-vendor inter-operability test have been
completed successfully.  The draft does not specify a MIB or provides
any protocol details.

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 11:54:37 +0000

Adrian

"It is the opinion of the document shepherd that discussion of
this document on the working group lists would be a distraction
from the technical protocol work that the working groups
need to do."

I disagree with the document shepherd in his evaluation.

The draft clearly sets out to enable the standardization
of an additional OAM for MPLS, and as such the MPLS WG
need to review the document and its references to
determine the consequences of the technology  being
deployed.

Furthermore, all MPLS documents that have so far requested
ACH codepoints have I believe been standards track. Why
is this not also a standards track document?

Stewart

---

From: John E Drake <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 04:17:09 -0800

Huub,

In your email, below, you state:

"This protocol has been defined in the ITU-T and should not be considered to be a MPLS protocol and therefore should not subject to the provisions of RFC 4929."

The subject protocol is used to provide OAM for MPLS networks.  You seem to be saying that because this protocol was developed by the ITU, it is not subject to the provisions of RFC 4929.  However, it is my understanding that RFC 4929 was put in place in order to ensure that all enhancements to MPLS are done in the IETF using the process defined in RFC 4929.  Perhaps rather than asserting that it is exempt from RFC 4929, you could share the reasoning that leads you to this assertion?

You also state:

"It does not make any proposals to modify the MPLS data plane forwarding behaviour or of the any IETF defined protocols.  Therefore, review by the MPLS WG is not required."

However, it is my understanding that the subject protocol is the same as that defined in 'MPLS-TP OAM based on Y.1731' ( http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-07).  As I am sure you are aware, that protocol was fully discussed by the MPLS working group at both the Maastricht and Beijing meetings, and was explicitly rejected by the working group.

Doesn't this request for a code point for the subject protocol without review by the MPLS working group constitute an attempt to circumvent the decision made by that working group?  

I call on the nominated AD to redirect this work to the MPLS working group using the MPLS change process.

Thanks,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Huub helvoort
> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 1:17 PM
> To: Adrian Farrel
> Cc: [email-masked]; The IESG;
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Request to publish draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 07:56:34 -0500

--On Friday, December 02, 2011 04:17 -0800 John E Drake
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> "This protocol has been defined in the ITU-T and should not be
> considered to be a MPLS protocol and therefore should not
> subject to the provisions of RFC 4929."
>...
> Doesn't this request for a code point for the subject protocol
> without review by the MPLS working group constitute an attempt
> to circumvent the decision made by that working group?  
> 
> I call on the nominated AD to redirect this work to the MPLS
> working group using the MPLS change process.
>...

Let me add one procedural observation to John Drake's summary.
We have a procedure for dealing with contributions to the RFC
Series and the networking literature for work that is really
independent of the IETF and IETF processes.  It involves the
Independent Submission Stream and Independent Submission Editor
(see RFC 4846).  I note that Independent Submission Handling has
not been requested here.  That seems to be something of a
contradiction to some of the comments in Huub's note.  By
contrast, if the document is properly an individual request to
the IESG, such requests normally originate and move through even
slightly-relevant WGs if they exist.  An individual direct
request to an AD for publication is normally rejected out of
hand if there is a relevant WG because it is assumed to be an
end run on the WG's process.  

We have one very important exception to that general model,
which is publication in the RFC Series of established standards
from other SDOs for the information of the Internet community or
to make those documents more accessible.  Such publication
requests normally comes through the IETF Stream to an AD when
the document is needed as a normative reference from some
standards-track activity, or at the request of the other SDO via
liaison channels or, exceptionally, to the Independent
Submission Editor (again, for documents with no connection to
IETF work.  None of those conditions seem to apply here.

So, while my reasoning is somewhat different, I reach the same
conclusion that John does: the document belongs in, and to, the
MPLS WG... or should be submitted to the Independent Submission
process (i) after that WG has completed all of its work and shut
down and(ii) it represents a fully-approved, deployed, and tests
standard from some other SDO.  Both, not either.

    regards,
     john

---

From: Thomas Nadeau <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 08:40:11 -0500

I disagree with the document shepherd's evaluation of this document. This document sets out to 
standardize an additional code point to support a type of OAM for MPLS, and as such the MPLS WG must 
review the document for technical correctness.  As far as I understand things, all MPLS documents that have 
requested ACH code points to-date have been on the standards track with MPLS expert WG review, and so this 
one should as well.

	--Tom

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 14:29:55 +0100

---- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
To: "Huub helvoort" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; "The IESG"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 2:40 PM
> requested ACH code points to-date have been on the standards track with MPLS
expert WG review, and so this

I don't doubt the history, but IANA gives a policy of
IETF Consensus (referencing [RFC4385]) which is defined as
" IETF Consensus - New values are assigned through the IETF
           consensus process. Specifically, new assignments are made via
           RFCs approved by the IESG. Typically, the IESG will seek
           input on prospective assignments from appropriate persons
           (e.g., a relevant Working Group if one exists)." [RFC2434]

If Standards Action had been the intention, then the WG should have
said so in RFC4385.

Tom Petch

---

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2011 14:52:16 +0000

On 02/12/2011 13:29, t.petch wrote:
> From: "Thomas Nadeau"<[email-masked]>
> To: "Huub helvoort"<[email-masked]>
> Cc: "Adrian Farrel"<[email-masked]>;
> <[email-masked]>;<[email-masked]>
You are correct Tom that SA is not required by the registry policy.

However the observation is that all other documents that have
requested an ACH have been SA, and the question is hence
whether the contents of this document are such that it also
needs to be SA.

Stewart

---

From: "Kyung-Yeop Hong (hongk)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 09:48:01 -0600

This document proposes an additional OAM for MPLS networks using an ACH
code point. As this protocol is intended to operate and manage MPLS
networks, this protocol is subject to the provisions of RFC4929 (MPLS
Change Process) and must be reviewed by the MPLS WG using RFC4929.

I call upon the nominated AD to redirect this work to the MPLS WG and
follow the MPLS Change Process.

I also agree with John's understanding that this protocol is the same as
"draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-07" that was discussed in the MPLS WG.

Thanks,
KY

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
John E Drake
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 7:17 AM
To: Huub helvoort; Adrian Farrel
Cc: [email-masked];
[email-masked]; The IESG;
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: Request to publish
draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt

Huub,

"This protocol has been defined in the ITU-T and should not be
considered to be a MPLS protocol and therefore should not subject to the
provisions of RFC 4929."

The subject protocol is used to provide OAM for MPLS networks.  You seem
to be saying that because this protocol was developed by the ITU, it is
not subject to the provisions of RFC 4929.  However, it is my
understanding that RFC 4929 was put in place in order to ensure that all
enhancements to MPLS are done in the IETF using the process defined in
RFC 4929.  Perhaps rather than asserting that it is exempt from RFC
4929, you could share the reasoning that leads you to this assertion?

You also state:

"It does not make any proposals to modify the MPLS data plane forwarding
behaviour or of the any IETF defined protocols.  Therefore, review by
the MPLS WG is not required."

However, it is my understanding that the subject protocol is the same as
that defined in 'MPLS-TP OAM based on Y.1731' (
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-07).  As I am
sure you are aware, that protocol was fully discussed by the MPLS
working group at both the Maastricht and Beijing meetings, and was
explicitly rejected by the working group.

Doesn't this request for a code point for the subject protocol without
review by the MPLS working group constitute an attempt to circumvent the
decision made by that working group?  

I call on the nominated AD to redirect this work to the MPLS working
group using the MPLS change process.

Thanks,

John

---

From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 17:06:46 +0100

Hi,
I fully support Stewart!
G.8113.1 proposes a OAM solution for MPLS-TP networks. 
It uses the MPLS EtherType (when transmitted inband and getting the same
treatment as the data traffic).
The document is built on G.8110.1 (MPLS-TP architecture) which refers to
G.8110 (MPLS architecture), and G.8110.1 refers to G.8113.1 back...
This makes it part of MPLS and MPLS-TP. 
And it should be reviewed by the MPLS WG.
Best regards,
Nurit

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
ext Stewart Bryant
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 1:55 PM
To: Adrian Farrel
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: Re: Request to publish
draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt

Adrian

Stewart

---

From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 17:55:28 +0100

Based on my points in my mail below, please note that the proposed
protocol is subject to the provisions of RFC4929 (MPLS
Change Process) and must be reviewed by the MPLS WG using RFC4929. 

Please redirect it to the MPLS WG and follow the MPLS Change Process.

Best regards,
Nurit

P.S. please note that the proposed solution is the same as
"draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-07" that was discussed in the MPLS WG.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 6:07 PM
To: [email-masked]; Adrian Farrel
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: RE: Request to publish
draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt

Hi,
I fully support Stewart!

-----Original Message-----

Adrian

Stewart

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 18:12:20 -0000

Hi Huub and authors of draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point,

Thanks for issuing a publication request and supplying the Secretariat with a
write-up. The document is entered in the datatracker and you can see its status
at http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point/

You suggested me as the sponsoring AD, so I will do the first steps to see how
we should progress the draft.

My process is from here on is as follows:

- Review draft and shepherd write-up
- Ask any questions and request a draft update if necessary
- Consult the MPLS WG chairs and IESG about whether this needs
   to be run through the MPLS WG and whether RFC 4929 applies
- Issue IETF last call if applicable

Please note that I am travelling for the next two weeks at the ITU-T SG15
meeting, so my ability to process this work will be reduced: I also have to
continue to do normal AD work-load, and the output of IETF working groups takes
precedence over AD sponsored documents.

Thanks,
Adrian

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Huub
> helvoort
> Sent: 01 December 2011 21:17
> To: Adrian Farrel
> Cc: [email-masked]; The IESG; [email-masked]

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 18:43:39 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 5:06 PM
> This makes it part of MPLS and MPLS-TP.

Nurit and others,

I would commend to you the e-mail that Russ posted here 30Nov2011 in which he
says, to Malcolm Johnson, Director of the ITU Telecommunication Standardization
Bureau,

>> IETF consensus continues to be required to allocate the code point.  My
experience leads me to believe that careful clarity about the proposed content
changes to G.8113.1, as well as specific clarity that G.8113.1 is not part of
MPLS and MPLS-TP, will aid in achieving such a consensus. The current situation
has engendered quite a bit of ambiguity in wording which, in my experience, will
not produce IETF consensus.

so claiming what is and is not part of MPLS-TP calls for some thought.

My interpretation is that this is not part of MPLS-TP, but that the code point
should be allocated in accordance with RFC4929 which, as I pointed out on the
MPLS list, does not require a standards track RFC and requires review by what
the IESG considers suitable, which could, or could not, include the MPLS list;
but the starting point should be the prior art which Russ has provided us with.

The deadline would appear to be 12Jan2012 which Malcolm and Huub would
appear to have provided us with the wherewithall to meet.

Tom Petch

---

From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2011 20:08:15 +0100

Tom hi,
If this is Ethernet OAM delivered *transparently* over MPLS-TP networks,
then there is *no* need for a code point, they can simply use PWs.
If this is a solution aims to provide an alternative OAM solution for
MPLS-TP networks, and it is based on G.8110.1 and G.8110, and uses the
MPLS EtherType, then it is part of MPLS and MPLS-TP. 
I believe it is the second case, therefore it requires the MPLS review
and a follow-up of the MPLS change process. 
Best regards,
Nurit

-----Original Message-----
From: ext t.petch [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 7:44 PM
To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); [email-masked]; Adrian
Farrel
Cc: iesg; ietf

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>

Nurit and others,

I would commend to you the e-mail that Russ posted here 30Nov2011 in
which he
says, to Malcolm Johnson, Director of the ITU Telecommunication
Standardization
Bureau,

>> IETF consensus continues to be required to allocate the code point.
My
experience leads me to believe that careful clarity about the proposed
content
changes to G.8113.1, as well as specific clarity that G.8113.1 is not
part of
MPLS and MPLS-TP, will aid in achieving such a consensus. The current
situation
has engendered quite a bit of ambiguity in wording which, in my
experience, will
not produce IETF consensus.

My interpretation is that this is not part of MPLS-TP, but that the code
point
should be allocated in accordance with RFC4929 which, as I pointed out
on the
MPLS list, does not require a standards track RFC and requires review by
what
the IESG considers suitable, which could, or could not, include the MPLS
list;
but the starting point should be the prior art which Russ has provided
us with.

Tom Petch

---

From: "Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 09:28:10 +0100

Huub, hi

I would like to thank you for this rather informative review of the
draft that you are shepherding. However, I am confused by some of the
omissions of your information -

1. In answer to question 1.b you point out that "no discussion has taken
place on any email lists.  However, this draft is addressing a well know
issue that was first brought to the attention of the IETF in a request
from the director of the ITU-T in June 2010..."  So the direct answer to
the question 
should have been "NO - there was not sufficient review of the document."

2. In answer to question 1.f you somehow failed to point out that a
previous version of this request that was presented in
draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn-01, was presented in the Routing Area open
meeting and "extreme discontent" was voiced by several participants,
albeit alongside the support of several participants.  However, again
the direct answer to the question should have been - based on the
discussion within the Routing Area - YES, extreme discontent was
expressed in the past to this request.

3. In answer to question 1.k you voice your opinion, as document
shepherd, " It is the opinion of the document shepherd that discussion
of this document on the working group 
lists would be a distraction from the technical protocol work that the
working groups need to do."  This, I think should be first verified with
the relevant WG-Chairs (that in my opinion could be both MPLS, whose
protocol this document wishes to monitor, and PWE3, who are the "owners"
of the registry that the document wishes to allocate a codepoint from.)
before making such a statement.  This decision is within the realm of
their responsibilities, I believe.

Thanx
Yaacov Weingarten
Nokia Siemens Networks

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
ext Huub helvoort
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 11:17 PM
To: Adrian Farrel
Cc: [email-masked]; The IESG;
[email-masked]
Subject: Request to publish draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt

--

    Technical Summary

    Working Group Summary

    Document Quality

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 21:06:51 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
To: "ext t.petch" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Adrian
Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "iesg" <[email-masked]>; "ietf" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 8:08 PM

Tom hi,

<tp>
Nurit

Yes, I think that it is more along the lines of the second case, an alternative
OAM solution, but it is the status of G.8113.1 that is in question, with Russ
saying that it cannot be part of MPLS-TP!
ITU-T are actively removing references thereto as in
the .pdf's that the ITU-T have made available to us, URI in the e-mail
from Russ, one of which says
<quote>

From: Johnson, Malcolm Sent: 01 December 2011 10:27 To: 'Russ Housley' Subject:
RE: MPLS
Dear Russ
..
(2) I attached a contribution which proposes amendments to the determined text
in COM15-R22. This includes the title change and makes changes to the
terminology throughout the document. What had previously been called "MPLS-TP
OAM" is now never referred to as such, but simply as "OAM" or "data-plane OAM".
As you can see there is a willingness to satisfy all the IETF concerns but if
there is still something else in the body of the draft Recommendation that
causes concern could you please specify what exactly it is so it can be
addressed?
</quote>

So my take is that the I-D we have needs review as specified in RFC4929, and the
IESG may well
decide that that involves review on the MPLS list, but I remain unconvinced that
that
makes in part of MPLS-TP; MPLS-TP has its OAM and does not need another one,
but some participants in the ITU-T do want another, 'not-MPLS-TP' OAM, and for
that, have requested a code point.  Obviously, this needs further discussion on
a suitable list
which we will doubtless engage in before too long.

Incidentally, has G.8113 been liaised to the MPLS WG?  If so, I might have
missed that.

Tom Petch
</tp>

Best regards,
Nurit

-----Original Message-----
From: ext t.petch [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 7:44 PM
To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); [email-masked]; Adrian
Farrel
Cc: iesg; ietf

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>

Nurit and others,

Tom Petch

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:21:03 +0100

.. I knew how to move things forward.   Earlier this year, the discussion was
about how meetings might be reorganised to make more happen, and I commented
that six meetings a year - no need to attend them - might produce six spurts of
activity in a 12 month period instead of three.

Post-Taipei, most of the WG I track, with the notable exception of the terrible
twins of v6, seem to be moribund; WGLC go unanswered, calls for adoption lie
fallow, those edits that would be made as soon as the window opened again remain
unmade, ...

The IESG is evidently working hard, but at the lower strata, ...

For Christmas, I wish ...

Tom Petch

---

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:26:55 -0500

In a situation where it is not clear if the foot-soldiers care if the work
gets done, I would contact them individually and find out if there
is any real interest in finishing the drafts.

Dale

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of t.petch [[email-masked]]

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:38:07 -0500

The end of year Holiday season is not generally known as a time when
lots of work gets done.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 08:44:45 +1300

Also, in general, we have operated on the basis that if people aren't
interested enough in a work item or draft to actually work on it or
review it, then the work item isn't really important to the community.

This even applies to drafts that I write, if nobody is interested ;-).

When all work items in the IETF reach that state, we can all get on
with our lives.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:03:41 -0800

>For Christmas, I wish ...

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/53/slides/plenary-3/sld016.htm

Regards,
-sm