Subject: RE: draft-pan-lsp-ping-00.txt discussion

From: "Mina Azad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 11:32:30 -0400

Yakov,
Thank you for your response. See my comments inline ("Mina:...").

Regards,

Mina

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yakov Rekhter [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 9:27 PM
> To: Azad, Mina [CAR:CS67:EXCH]
> Cc: mpls-list
> Subject: Re: draft-pan-lsp-ping-00.txt discussion
> 
> 
> Mina,
> 
> > The discussion on draft-pan-lsp-ping-00.txt has been a 
> lengthy but very
> > fruitful - as it surfaced a number of underlying requirements.
> > Unfortunately, the discussion lost the sight of basic 
> issues: generality,
> > framework, and ownership.
> 
> There is a difference of opinions on whether such issues as
> framework and ownership are "basic issues" - an alternative opinion
> is that these are irrelevant issues. 
> 
> > Generality: The draft has a narrow focus (RSVP specific, 
> requires a healthy
> > control-plane, ...). There are now two general true 
> user-plane solutions in
> > front of IETF: draft-azad-mpls-oam-messaging-00.txt that 
> proposes use of
> > user-plane probe & loopback mechanism, and 
> draft-harrison-mpls-oam-00.txt
> > that proposes continuity verification.
> 
> It is certainly correct that the solution described in
> draft-pan-lsp-ping-00.txt is RSVP specific, and it does require a
> healthy control-plane.  Therefore, this solution is certainly
> disqualified from being a LTSFGTC (Long Term Solutions For Generations
> To Come).
> 
> At the same time, IMHO the efforts of the folks who are pursuing
> the LTSFGTC should not *in any way* be disrupted/disturbed by
> any solution that has "a narrow focus" (like the one described in
> draft-pan-lsp-ping-00.txt). The work on the LTSFGTC should continue
> unabated.
> 
Mina: The draft draft-allan-mpls-oam-frmwk-00.txt is a step 
forward towards making MPLS the network technology of choice 
by recommending a multi-operator management approach. It 
highlights what's doable today and what needs to be achieved 
in the future. The draft draft-azad-mpls-oam-messaging-00.txt 
focuses on a solution that can be implemented today.

> > Framework: draft-allan-mpls-oam-frmwk-00.txt provides a 
> discussion on OAM
> > issues, and proposes a multi-operational domain framework. 
> 
> Are there any plans to coordinate the work on the framework with
> other standard-making bodies, like ITU-T, ATM Forum, etc... ?
> 

Mina: Both drafts are stand alone solutions in the IETF. However we 
recognize the need for coordination of work across IETF and ITU-T. 
I am working with the ITU-T OAM sub-working group, and aim for 
solutions that satisfy enterprise and carrier requirements.

> > Ownership: Big question or a challenge?! Which working 
> group will own MPLS
> > user-plane OAM? 
> 
> How about starting a new Working Group ? Then this working group
> would own all the OAM-related activities.
> 

Mina: Excellent suggestion! We will propose a new working 
group (MPLS management WG) to the area directors in IETF-51.

> Yakov.