Subject: [PWE3] Draft liaison to ITU-T SG15 Q9, Q11, Q12 and Q13 regarding draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 09:07:04 -0400

PWE3ers,

As a result of the discussion in Vancouver, this is the body of a
liaison we will be sending to ITU-T SG15 Q9, Q11, Q12 and Q13
regarding draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt. Please respond with any
comments on the liaison. Since the next SG15 meeting is coming up, we
would like to get this liaison sent soon, so please respond within the
next few days.

Thanks,
Andy

------------

Please find attached draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt (Transparent
SDH/SONET over Packet). This is an individual draft submitted to the
PWE3 working group to propose a new structure-agnostic pseudowire
encapsulation for SONET/SDH client signals, as opposed to RFC 4842
(SONET/SDH Circuit Emulation over Packet), which is structure-aware.
Before the PWE3 WG decides whether to progress with this work, we
would very much appreciate SG15's opinion regarding the correctness of
the draft's technical approach, its suitability for standardization in
the IETF, and whether it unnecessarily duplicates the functionality of
RFC 4842.

Best regards,

Andrew G. Malis
Matthew Bocci
PWE3 Working Group Chairs

---

From: "Shahram Davari" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:28:23 +0000

Hi Andy,

Before sending this Liaison to ITU, did you ask whether there is enough support in PWE3 to progress this draft? 

I personally am not in favor of progressing this draft , since it is for a very specific Scenario with very little use. We already have an RFC for Sonet/SDH CES and I don't think we yet need another one.

Regards,
Shahram

On Aug 15, 2012, at 6:07 AM, "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:37:09 -0400

Shahram,

Thanks, and indeed, we have not yet called for a WG consensus on this
draft. The primary reason for sending the liaison is to use SG15's
reply to assist the WG in making a decision on whether to progress the
draft. More information is better than less.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Alexander Vainshtein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:11:42 +0000

Andy,
I defer to you regarding the text of the liaison.

However, maybe you should consider adding that there is no clear consensus in the WG regarding the technical approach presented in this draft?

Regards,
     Sasha

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Andrew G. Malis
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 4:07 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [PWE3] Draft liaison to ITU-T SG15 Q9, Q11, Q12 and Q13 regarding
> draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt
> 
> PWE3ers,
> 

This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof.

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:22:06 -0400

Sasha,

The liaison does say "Before the PWE3 WG decides whether to progress
with this work, ...", but if you like I can strengthen this to say:

"There is currently no clear consensus in the WG regarding the
technical approach presented in this draft, and to aid the WG in its
decision whether to progress with this work, ..."

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Alexander Vainshtein <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:31:50 +0000

Andy,
Lots of thanks for a prompt response.

The strengthened text is exactly what I had in mind.

Regards,
     Sasha

> From: Andrew G. Malis [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 6:22 PM
> To: Alexander Vainshtein
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] Draft liaison to ITU-T SG15 Q9, Q11, Q12 and Q13
> regarding draft-manhoudt-pwe3-tsop-01.txt
> 
> Sasha,
> 
> > However, maybe you should consider adding that there is no clear
> consensus in the WG regarding the technical approach presented in this
> draft?
> >
> > Regards,
> >      Sasha
> >
> > This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains
> information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI
> Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please inform us by
> e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof.
> >