Subject: RE: [mpls] R: RE: R: Re: LastCall: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt> (Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect indicationfor MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard

From: "GT RAMIREZ, Medel G." <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:28:00 +0800

Erminio Hi,

I belong to an Operator, I strongly agree with Greg.

Regards

Medel

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Greg Mirsky
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 10:50 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; IETF-Announce; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [mpls] R: RE: R: Re: LastCall:
<draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt> (Proactive Connectivity
Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect indicationfor MPLS
Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard

Dear Erminio,
even though I'm not an operator but I think that you've went bit too far
in your first generalization.
"Every generalization is wrong, including this one"

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:32 PM, [email-masked]
<[email-masked]> wrote:

The technical concern raised during the WG poll has not been resolved so
the
history definetely matters.

Quoting RFC5921:

  There are thus two objectives for MPLS-TP:

  1.  To enable MPLS to be deployed in a transport network and operated
      in a similar manner to existing transport technologies.

  2.  To enable MPLS to support packet transport services with a
      similar degree of predictability to that found in existing
      transport networks.

Based on the extensive comments provided by transport operators and
ITU-T
community, the solution in this draft is useless in case 1.

The fact that the solution in this draft is not backward compatible with
existing IP/MPLS BFD implementations means that this solution is also
uselesee
in case 2.

Are there other undocumented use cases for MPLS-TP deployments?

>----Messaggio originale----
>Da: [email-masked]
>Data: 7-lug-2011 11.59
>A: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>,
<[email-masked]>,

"IETF-Announce"<[email-masked]>

>Cc: <[email-masked]>
>Ogg: RE: [mpls] R: Re: LastCall:
&lt;draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt&gt;

(Proactive      Connectivity    Verification,Continuity Check and Remote
Defect

indicationfor   MPLS    Transport       Profile) to Proposed Standard

>
>Erminio,
>I do not think the history is relevant for this specific discussion...
>Also I find it inappropriate to give statements with no justifications
>behind.
>You say: "the solution in this draft is useless for many MPLS-TP
>deployments.".  in order to seriously consider your comment, you have
to
>show why it is useless and which requirements are not satisfied.
>Otherwise you cannot expect anyone to refer to your point.
>Best regards,
>Nurit
>
>P.s. did you mean that the document is useless to available
non-standard
>deployments, e.g. T-MPLS?
>
>

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

This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of the individual or the entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete this E-mail message immediately.

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 22:32:09 +0200 (CEST)

The technical concern raised during the WG poll has not been resolved so the 
history definetely matters.

Quoting RFC5921:

Based on the extensive comments provided by transport operators and ITU-T 
community, the solution in this draft is useless in case 1.

The fact that the solution in this draft is not backward compatible with 
existing IP/MPLS BFD implementations means that this solution is also uselesee 
in case 2.

>A: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, 
>Cc: <[email-masked]>
>Ogg: RE: [mpls] R: Re: LastCall:	&lt;draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt&gt;	
(Proactive	Connectivity	Verification,Continuity Check and Remote Defect 
indicationfor	MPLS	Transport	Profile) to Proposed Standard
>deployments.".  in order to seriously consider your comment, you have to
>P.s. did you mean that the document is useless to available non-standard

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:49:57 -0700

Dear Erminio,
even though I'm not an operator but I think that you've went bit too far in
your first generalization.
"Every generalization is wrong, including this one"

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:32 PM, [email-masked] <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> >A: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]
> >,