Re: Fw: Request to publish draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt
Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein <at> ecitele.com>
2011-12-04 06:44:03 GMT
Tom, and all,
IMHO and FWIW the request presented in draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point is a request for an MPLS
change, especially so since RFC 6426 and RFC 6428 have been already published as PS.
Hence this request has to be processed by the IETF in accordance with the guidelines (quite detailed) of RFC
4929. My reading of this document is that the MPLS WG cannot be bypassed in this case.
My 2c,
Sasha
________________________________________
From: mpls-bounces <at> ietf.org [mpls-bounces <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of t.petch [ietfc <at> btconnect.com]
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 11:44 AM
To: mpls <at> ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] Fw: Request to publish draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt
An interesting strategem, from the IETF list. These code points are assigned by
IETF Consensus[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]
I wonder whom the IESG will consider appropriate.
For myself, I would approve it, but I would also consider the MPLS WG
'appropriate'.
Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Huub helvoort" <huub.van.helvoort <at> huawei.com>
To: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian <at> olddog.co.uk>
Cc: <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point <at> tools.ietf.org>; "The IESG"
<iesg-secretary <at> ietf.org>; <Ietf <at> ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 10:17 PM
> 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 (Huub.van.Helvoort <at> huawei.com)
> 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.
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is CONFIDENTIAL and
which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please inform us
by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof.
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
RSS Feed