Subject: [Mpls-interop] draft-jenkins-mpls-mpls-tp-requirements updated following MEAD meeting

From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:35:22 +0100

Colleagues,

See attached for a re-spin (pre5) of
draft-jenkins-mpls-mpls-tp-requirements-01 following the MEAD meeting in
Boston.

Some notes/comments:

1) Meeting notes record " Introduction: We use SONET/SDH in the intro quite
a bit. Should we also mention Ethernet and the direction the technology is
headed and should we mention light paths?  We don¹t want to convey that we
are trying to redefine SONET.
This should work with packets in G.709.  The introduction is text that was
taken from ITU-T on why we are creating these requirements, but we don¹t
want to make presumptions on the technology paths that will be followed.
 
Do we want to expand the text of this document to include the things we are
working on or do we want to continue to use the text from the previous
document.  The author¹s agree that text should be crafted to reflect what
things we want to include."

Can folks send me their suggestions please?

2) Meeting notes recorded " Missing requirement of resiliency schemes and
self healing aspects. Note that in 2.1 there are only general requirements
the more specific requirement are handled further in the document.  Would
still like to have as a general requirement. Lieven agreed to propose text."
Lieven - can you provide me with some text to use?

3) I have e-mailed OAM & NM requirements to respective editors and assume
they will include them in the next spin of their drafts.

4) Meeting notes recorded "³An MPLS-TP LSP must require the forward and
backward directions of an LSP to follow to same path at each layer.²  Italo
will document his suggestion which was agreed." I have not seen input from
Italo so have used:

" An MPLS-TP network MUST require the forward and backward directions of a
bi-directional transport path to follow the same path at each layer."

5) Context specific labels - was hard to determine consensus from the list
so I went with the last suggestion by Lou that John agreed with as I didn;t
see any objection to that wording. Wording is now:

" MPLS-TP MUST support MPLS labels that are assigned by the downstream (with
respect to data flow) node per [RFC3031] and [RFC3473] and MAY support
context-specific MPLS labels as defined in [RFC5331]."

6) Lou promised to help with aligning terminology with RFC4427 - Lou can you
send me your comments on terminology alignment on this new version privately
and I will incorporate them.

7) Control plane section - notes did not include clear guidance of what do
to except John would identify reqs already covered by ASON.  So I edited the
section so it refers out to ASON routing & signalling & MRN/MLN requirements
documents in the intro and only now contains requirements that John did not
identify as being covered by those RFCs.

Ben

_______________________________________________
Mpls-interop mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-interop