[mpls] RE: [PWE3] Liaison - Progress on G.8110.1 Amendment

["Italo Busi" <italo.busi at alcatel-lucent.it>]

Stewart,

thanks for reviewing the draft. I will come with some comments later.

However, I would like to start clarifying a point regarding appendix V in order
to avoid misunderstanding.

Appendix V is aligned with the current IETF WG drafts. The intent of the note at
the beginning of the appendix is to signal that this appendix will be reviewed
when these WG drafts are published as RFCs to keep the alighment with the IETF
work.

ITU-T has developed this appendix to address MFA Forum comments (that IETF PWE3
shared) asking for adding to the previous draft more detailed information and
making very clear that the p2mp LSP support is in line with the current IETF WG
drafts.

I think it would be good to double check the alignment of appendix V with the
current IETF WG drafts.

According to me they are aligned.

Thanks, Italo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbryant at cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 6:11 PM
> To: pwe3
> Cc: George Swallow (swallow); mpls at ietf.org; Mark Townsley; Danny
> McPherson
> Subject: [PWE3] Liaison - Progress on G.8110.1 Amendment
>
>
> To PWE3 WG:
>
> I have been looking at the ITU SG15 Q12 Liaison Progress on G.8110.1
> Amendment
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaison_detail.cgi?detail_id=312
>
> Here are my first thoughts on a response - which will of course be
> dressed up before they are formally sent out :)
>
> Does anyone have any comments on these thoughts, or any other comments
> that we should make as a WG?
>
> - Stewart
>
>
> Section 3.5 Transport MPLS definition
>
> Should be amended to make it clear TMPLS is a true subset of IETF PWE3
> over MPLS and that in the case of any differences, the IETF definition
> is considered the Normative definition.
>
> Section 4.7.2 and A.3
>
> The PWE3 WG is concerned that the OAM is not based on VCCV. Any true
> subset of the IETF PWE3/MPLS design should allow the use of the IETF
> preferred OAM mechanism. This does not preclude the ITU specifying an
> additional mechanism as an optional extension to enhance VCCV, although
> it would be preferable for the ITU to work with the IETF to enhance VCCV
> to provide the additional OAM mechanisms that are needed.
>
> The PWE3 WG is not clear how you determine that the client signal is not
> present when the client is a packet service.
>
> Do we wish to comment on Sections 8.2.3 - intrusive monitoring and 8.2.4
> Sublayer (Tandem) monitoring?
>
> Section 4.10
>
> – Minimize the rerouting distance (to avoid physical layer impairments
> on the signals).
>
> We do not understand why in a well engineered network the distance in
> the virtual layer providing reroute has impact results in physical layer
> impairments
>
> Appendix V
>
> The introductory material to Appendix V states that it will be
> re-written at some time in the future to align with the IETF work on
> p2mp LSPs. We have therefore not reviewed this section and request that
> you resubmit this text for our review when it is aligned with the IETF
> approach.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3 at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls