Subject: [mpls] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching-09.txt

From: Huub van Helvoort <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 12:46:44 +0100

Dear WG chairs,

The authors of draft-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching
have decided to publish the document on the independent stream
as an informational RFC.

Because it documents the pre-standard implementation of MPLS-TP
linear protection that has been deployed by several network
operators using equipment from multiple vendors.
At the time of publication these pre-standard implementations
were still in operation carrying live traffic.

Best regards, Huub van Helvoort.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: I-D Action: draft-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching-09.txt
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 23:36:02 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Reply-To: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.

         Title           : Pre-standard Linear Protection Switching in 
MPLS-TP
         Authors         : Huub van Helvoort
                           Jeong-dong Ryoo
                           Haiyan Zhang
                           Feng Huang
                           Han Li
                           Alessandro D'Alessandro
	Filename        : draft-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching-09.txt
	Pages           : 27
	Date            : 2014-01-24

Abstract:
    The IETF Standards Track solution for MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-
    TP) Linear Protection is provided in RFC 6378, draft-ietf-mpls-psc-
    updates and draft-ietf- mpls-tp-psc-itu.

    This document describes the pre-standard implementation of MPLS-TP
    Linear Protection that has been deployed by several network operators
    using equipment from multiple vendors.  At the time of publication
    these pre-standard implementations were still in operation carrying
    live traffic."

    The specified mechanism supports 1+1 unidirectional/bidirectional
    protection switching and 1:1 bidirectional protection switching.  It
    is purely supported by MPLS-TP data plane, and can work without any
    control plane.

    This document is a product of a joint Internet Engineering Task Force
    (IETF) / International Telecommunications Union Telecommunications
    Standardization Sector (ITU-T) effort to include an MPLS Transport
    Profile within the IETF MPLS and PWE3 architectures to support the
    capabilities and functionalities of a packet transport network as
    defined by the ITU-T.

    [Editor's note] To be included in "Status of Memo": This document is
    not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for
    informational purposes.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching-09

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching-09

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 13:04:31 +0800

Working Group, authors,

The authors of draft-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-
switching) are looking to publish their document as an Independent
Stream RFC. The MPLS Working Group was informed about this on the
MPLS working group mailing (see below).

The MPLS Working Group decided to progress a Proposed Standard RFC for
MPLS-TP Linear protection Switching (RFC 6378). This is still the
Working Group consensus.  Further there is work-in-progress to update
RFC 6378 to match the functionality of APS.

However it is a long standing tradition to publish documents that were
not progressed as working group RFCs, particularly if they have been
implemented and deployed. This for example is done for the historic
record and due to the value of documenting deployed solutions.

This is the case with  draft-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching.
The document clearly states that IETF Standard Track MPLS-TP Linear
Protection is specified in RFC 6378. It also states that the protocol
specified in the draft is a non-IETF pre-standard protocol.

The MPLS working group chairs are therefore not opposed to the
publication of the document as an RFC on the Independent Stream.

The Working Group chairs invite the working group to comment on this,
please send comments to the working group mailing list ([email-masked]).

The MPLS Working Group Chairs
Loa, Ross and George

On 2014-01-25 19:46, Huub van Helvoort wrote:
>      Filename        :
> draft-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching-09.txt
>      Pages           : 27
>      Date            : 2014-01-24
>
> Abstract:

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: [email-masked]
Senior MPLS Expert                          [email-masked]
Huawei Technologies (consultant)     phone: +46 739 81 21 64

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 16:49:19 +0000

Loa,

	As I understand it, when an Internet Draft is published as an Independent
Stream RFC, the publication notice will explicitly state that the document is not an
IETF working group product.

	I think it might be a good idea to offer the WG a chance to try to improve 
the quality of the draft prior to its publication, but I also think it is important for 
folks to realize two things:

1) Because the proposal is to publish the draft as Independent, the Authors aren't
     expected to respond to or address any detailed comments on the draft itself;
2) There is no implicit working group endorsement to be imputed by any lack of 
      comments on the draft itself.

	Hence I believe - just to be clear - you are asking only for comments on the
decision to allow publication of the draft as an Independent Stream RFC.

	Is that correct?

	Presumably, if anyone has detailed or editorial comments on the draft, it
is probably preferable for those comments to be addressed to the authors of the
draft privately...

--
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 12:05 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mpls] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching-09.txt

Working Group, authors,

-- 

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

---

From: Curtis Villamizar <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 12:34:08 -0500

See inline.

In message <[email-masked]>
Eric Gray writes:
> 
> Loa,
>  
> 	As I understand it, when an Internet Draft is published as an
> Independent Stream RFC, the publication notice will explicitly state
> that the document is not an IETF working group product.
>  
> 	I think it might be a good idea to offer the WG a chance to
> try to improve the quality of the draft prior to its publication, but
> I also think it is important for folks to realize two things:
>  
> 1) Because the proposal is to publish the draft as Independent, the
>      Authors aren't expected to respond to or address any detailed
>      comments on the draft itself; 2) There is no implicit working
>      group endorsement to be imputed by any lack of comments on the
>      draft itself.
>  
> 	Hence I believe - just to be clear - you are asking only for
> comments on the decision to allow publication of the draft as an
> Independent Stream RFC.
>  
> 	Is that correct?
>  
> 	Presumably, if anyone has detailed or editorial comments on
> the draft, it is probably preferable for those comments to be
> addressed to the authors of the draft privately...
>  
> --
> Eric
>  

The above paragraph is not true since this is not a product of an IETF
WG nor is it related to the agreed upon process between ITU-T and
IETF.  Therefore the paragraph should be removed.

> > until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.vorg.

---

From: Eric Gray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 17:48:44 +0000

Good catch, Curtis!

--
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 12:34 PM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: Loa Andersson; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mpls] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-zulr-mpls-tp-linear-protection-switching-09.txt
Importance: High

See inline.

---

From: Huub van Helvoort <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 18:54:45 +0100

Curtis,

You wrote:

---8<---
> IETF.  Therefore the paragraph should be removed.

The authors have already noticed this.
The paragraph will have been removed in the next version.

Regards, Huub.

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2014 02:34:51 +0800

Eric,

The working group chairs has discussed the information we had from the
document authors. We found that we have no reason to try to stop the
publication of the document as an Independent Stream RFC.

We also say that if any want to comment on that they are welcome to do
so on the mpls wg mailing list.

If anyone have technical or other comments on the draft they definitely
should send them to the authors, and as for that this is of interest for
the working group also copy the list.

However since the document is reflecting what has been implemented and
deployed there is not much idea to discuss technical improvements of the
solution as such, it is what it is.

/Loa
mpls wg co-chair

--