Subject: Corrections required to draft-martini-atm-encap-mpls-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:08:22 +0100

Andy/Luca,

Hopefully you will recall that back on 20 June 2002 I wrote all the 19 (?)
authors of draft-martini-atm-encap-mpls-01.txt explaining why I was not
happy with this draft and that I wanted my name removing from it....I don't
even understand why my name was put on it in the first place.  Andy
acknowledged my mail and indicated to Luca to remove my name from the draft
before publishing.....however I see it is still on there.  Would you
therefore please remove it now (should help a bit with reducing the long
author list anyway).

Besides my prior remarks of June, I also now notice this text in section
5.1.1 2nd item 4 (on p8):

"There are currently no OAM mechanisms defined for the PSN like those
defined for ATM. Therefore the methods for the detection/consequent-actions
of failures in the PSN are not specified. This also means that
QoS/availability metrics cannot be specified for the PSN." 

This is incorrect in the case of MPLS.  Y.1710 (requirements) and Y.1711
(OAM mechanisms) give very simple but powerful techniques that address all
these issues (Note - this is *not* the same as the ATM case, and in fact the
measurement of availability in ATM seems far too complex IMO....due to the
poor way the OAM stuff was orginally done).

The logical progression that is required goes like this:
-	identify all defect types;
-	specify detection mechanisms with entry/exit criteria and
appropriate consequent actions (to each specific defect considered);
-	.....this now allows availability entry/exit criteria to be
specified (the flow charts are given in Y.1711 for near-end and far-end
cases), and thus allows availability SLAs to be specified/measured;
-	.....and once you are at this point you now have a base for
specifying any QoS SLAs that may be required....you don't otherwise.

So can I suggest you point the reader at Y.1710/1711.  Thanks.

regards, Neil