Subject: [mpls] wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-02 has terminated

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:18:55 +0100

All,

the working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-02
has ended.

1. we have received the information from ITU-T ad hoc team on mpls-tp
    that the comments they have is aligned with the last call comments
    received under point 4. below in the MPLS wg last call.

2. We have received one comment that says that the associated channel
    should not be used for OAM. Since this is the entire purpose of the
    of the associated channel the authors/editors are instructed not
    consider this comment.
3. We have received comments that would require us to revisit the
    results of the JWT investigtion. We will not do so, since this is
    not within our charter.
4. We have received one comment that we are allocating to many too many
    experimental code points, the editors/authors are instructed to solve
    this together with the current and future RTG AD and the MEAD team
    chair.

5. We have received a set of comments, that should be considered as
    "friendly ammendments" and that should be responded to by the
    authors-editors.

Could the authors lease update the draft and republish.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson

Sr Strategy and Standards Manager    phone:  +46 10 717 52 13
Ericsson ///                                 +46 767 72 92 13 

                                       email:  [email-masked]
                                               [email-masked]
                                               [email-masked]

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:47:31 +0100

all,

Italo has point out that I can't count, I made a subtle change
(4 -> 5) to correct that.

/Loa

Loa Andersson wrote:
>    received under point 5. below in the MPLS wg last call.
> 
> 4. We have received one comment that we are allocating too many
>    "friendly amendments" and that should be responded to by the
>    authors-editors.
> 

-- 

Loa Andersson

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:02:54 -0000

Loa...I have a comment on this...please see below: 

Loa wrote 18 March 2009 14:19 <snipped>

>     of the associated channel the authors/editors are instructed not

NH=> This is not accurate...at least if this is a reference to my
observations.  When I originally read the GAL draft it was my strong
impression (and I also believe that of many other folks) that DP OAM
would appear under the GAL (ie a header containing a special label,
likely to be 13 in value).  On this assumption then MPLS-TP DP traffic
and DP OAM would not have identical headers....this was the basis of my
objection.

Then I saw a draft from Stewart (draft-bryant-pwe3-packet-pw-00.txt)
targeted at PWE3 but clearly referencing MPLS-TP, and a follow-up mail
from Stewart that, for the first time, made it clear what was being
proposed for the DP in MPLS-TP...and in particular that the MPLS-TP DP
OAM would follow the G-Ach and not be prefixed by the GAL (so now the
labelled headers of DP traffic and DP OAM would be the same)  Though I
believe there are cases of sublayer spans where the GAL could be used
for OAM....but I am not sure what these are.

regards, Neil