The MPLS WG Archive

["Italo Busi" <italo.busi@alcatel-lucent.it>]

Stewart,

I agree that a draft should not be ready for RFC editorship to become a WG
draft.

However, based on this mail discussion, I do not think the draft is going in the
direction to meet the requirements so I do not support it to become a WG draft.

Moreover, I am now lost about the intent of the draft.

If the intent of the draft is to show to ITU-T how you believe that T-MPLS could
have been designed to meet the ITU-T requirements, it is good not to make it a
WG draft and liaise it to ITU-T, as agreed at the IETF 67.

Otherwise if the intent is to start an activity inside IETF to define T-MPLS, I
think that the draft is too much immature to become WG draft. We need to clearly
define the scope and objective of this work inside IETF and its relationship
with the ITU-T and therefore, based on that, identify which are the required
changes to this draft to become a WG document.

Thanks, Italo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbryant@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:55 PM
> To: dimitri papadimitriou
> Cc: mpls@ietf.org; pwe3
> Subject: Re: [mpls] RE: [PWE3]Fwd:
> I-DACTION:draft-bryant-pwe3-mpls-transport-00.txt
>
>
> Dimitri
>
> Remember that the point of the draft was to note that the requirements
> specified by ITU at the time when the draft was written could be met
> without any additional work.
>
> - Stewart
>
> dimitri papadimitriou wrote:
> > stewart
> >
> > reading this lengthy thread, there is indeed a lack of description of
> > (potentially) missing requirements/features from draft-bryant & others;
> >
> > hence, it would be helpful to have such piece of text (using language
> > that is understandable by the IETF community) and apply the mpls-gmpls
> > change process to it - this because it is not obvious, at this point
> > in time, that the potential changes would be acceptable for the IETF
> > itself
> >
> > ps: you are correct when stating that a draft does not need to be ready
> > for RFC editorship to become a working group doc.
> >
> > thanks,
> > - d.
> >
> > On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 01:13:13 +0100, Stewart Bryant
> > <stbryant@cisco.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Don
> >>
> >> A draft does not need to be complete for it to be
> >> accepted as a WG draft, it needs to be a suitable
> >> platform that the WG can use to move forward.
> >>
> >>> IETF is extending MPLS technology all the time. The extensions
> >> that I see that are required are:
> >>
> >> 1) transport OAM enhancements
> >>
> >> Given that the existing PWE3 OAM functions are adequate
> >> for our own purposes, what is special about the transport
> >> environment that requires extensions?
> >>
> >> It is not appropriate to list alternative OAM protocols,
> >> PWE3 needs to know what specific additional functionality
> >> it needs to provide a comprehensive OAM design.
> >>
> >> 2) support for transport protection switching
> >>
> >> PWE3 has already started work on protection. What
> >> requirements exist in the transport network that are not
> >> addressed by the proposed work?
> >>
> >> Would you be prepared to contribute text to a PWE3 protection
> >> requirements draft?
> >>
> >> 3) GMPLS - ASON control plane enhancements (using the procedures
> >> that CCAMP has in place with ITU)
> >>
> >> The control plane design for PWE3 over MPLS and for MPLS is
> >> a proven design that is widely deployed. How is the existing
> >> designs unsuitable, and what additional requirements does a
> >> transport environment have that are not satisfied by that
> >> design.
> >>
> >> - Stewart
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> mpls mailing list
> >> mpls@lists.ietf.org
> >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ---dimitri.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>


_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls