Subject: [PWE3] Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-01

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:06:43 +0100

All,

this is to initiate a working group last call on
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-01

This is the first of a series MPLS Transport Profile documents
to be last called. The last call is directed to the MPLS, PWE3
and CCAMP working groups.

According to procedures agreed upon in the JWT decision the
working last call does also include the ITU-T MPLS-TP ad hoc team.

This working group last call will end eob Jan 20, 2009.

Though I know this is futile:

*Please do not do a "Replay all"* but direct comments to the
[email-masked] mailing list.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson

Sr Strategy and Standards Manager
Redback Networks                      phone:  +46 8 632 77 14
An Ericsson company
                                       email:  [email-masked]
                                               [email-masked]

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---

From: "David Allan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:08:35 -0500

Hi Loa/authors: 

Some comments:

1) I for one would like to see a stronger health warning in section 3.1.
Such as...

"You MAY use these mechanisms with IP/MPLS but will produce
indeterminate results as GAL/GACH identified OAM PDUs are not guaranteed
to fate share with payload in the presence of ECMP (as per RFC 4928)."

Alternatively I'd recommend a stronger advistory recommending that these
tools should only be considered when one can be sure that there is an
identical profile to MPLS-TP employed with IP/MPLS (no ECMP, no PHP, no
merge).  

2) Similarly section 3.3 suggests that the presence of the GACH means
the GAL/GACH combination complies with RFC 4928.

Presence of the GACH alone avoids ECMP and v4/v6 aliasing. Not true for
the combination of GAL/GACH.

So the first bullet of 3.3 should simply be turfed. The claim of 4928
compliance is specious and misleading.

3) The second bullet of 3.3 (suggesting scope of GAL exceeds that of RFC
3429) does not really hold water as well and should also be turfed.

The only real substantive content in section 3.3 is that RFC 3429 is
deployed and the hence a new reserved label was needed if OAM PDUs were
to be redesigned.

4) I find section 4 a bit bizzare, suggesting what non compliant devices
should do....
	- either it does not support GAL/GACH and does not know it OR
	- it does not support it but knows what it is...

   What it should say is already in RFC 3813....increment
ifInUnknownProtos in the MPLS layer ifTable.

Cheers
Dave

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:05:55 +0100

this wg last call has terminated.

What will happen now is that we will receive consolidated comments
from the ITU-T MPLS-TP ad hoc team, we've been promised that we will
those comments "within a few days".

Once we received those comment could the editors/authors please
prepare responses to all comments and re-spin the draft.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson

Sr Strategy and Standards Manager
Ericsson ///                          phone:  +46 8 632 77 14

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

---

From: "Malcolm Betts" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:43:59 -0500

[email-masked] list.  I have not seen any suggestions that the ITU-T
needs to provide any formal comments on this draft.  Clearly the
comments should be addressed before the draft is approved.  

Since you have indicated that the draft will be respun, and I assume you
will initiate a new last call, I do not see a need for the ITU to send a
formal liaison in response your request to review this draft.

Malcolm Betts
co chair Ad Hoc group on MPLS-TP
Phone: +1 613 763 7860 (ESN 393)
email: [email-masked]

-----Original Message-----
From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 6:06 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: George Swallow; Matthew Bocci; David Ward; Betts, Malcolm
(CAR:X632); Deborah Brungard; Stewart Bryant; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [PWE3] Working Group Last Call on
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-gach-gal-01

All,

What will happen now is that we will receive consolidated comments from
the ITU-T MPLS-TP ad hoc team, we've been promised that we will those
comments "within a few days".

Once we received those comment could the editors/authors please prepare
responses to all comments and re-spin the draft.

/Loa

Loa Andersson wrote:
> This is the first of a series MPLS Transport Profile documents to be 
> last called. The last call is directed to the MPLS, PWE3 and CCAMP 
> working groups.
> 
> According to procedures agreed upon in the JWT decision the working 
> last call does also include the ITU-T MPLS-TP ad hoc team.
> 

-- 

Loa Andersson

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