Subject: RE: draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-08.txt - partial lastcall

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 08:53:19 +0100

Mustapha, Luca,
<snipped>
> > >1. Section 4: remove details of OAM behaviour for each PW type,
> > >e.g., the whole section 4.2.4.1, section 4.2.5, and some text in
> > >section 4.3. The latter are covered in great details in
> > >draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-00.txt. This section should only
> > >summarize the encapsulation for each PW type.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > not in last call - cannot change it. ( besides I do not want this 
> > document to depend on the msg mapping one. )
NH=> You are wise to do this IMO, though I am not sure your
(alternative) intentions may be sound either.....I could hazard a guess
you are looking for the signalling protocol (LDP perhaps?) to convey
fault-notifications.   From what I have seen so far there is a poor
understanding of what is required (from both technical and commercial
considerations) when we interwork layer networks in a client/server
sense and a peer-partition sense (esp when the layer networks involved
belong to different modes).
> 
> MA> I am suggesting not to make any reference to OAM behaviour or
> OAM draft in this document. Each encapsulation draft has some 
> text on OAM and the details are in 
> draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-00.txt. I would prefer that we do 
> not have many documents with inconsistent procedures.
>  
> > >2. Section 4.6: remove last sentence. The PW control word may be 
> > >required for the purpose of proper operation of inband PW OAM in a 
> > >ECMP network. There is now a draft which puts together the 
> > >encapsulation details for a IP PW, 
> > >http://pwe3.tcb.net/draft-balus-pwe3-ip-pseudowire-00.txt.
NH=> I've just read this.  I have some problems with this draft, and IMO
it also demonstrates a lack of understanding of interworking
requirements between different technologies/modes.  If I get chance
later today I'll drop the principle author a note on this.

Regards, Neil
<snipped to end>