Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] poll on making draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-07.txt a working group draft

[Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein at ecitele.com>]

Adrian,
I fully agree with you  regarding "four questions" that should be answered when we decide whether an individual draft 
should - or should not - be adopted as a WG draft.

And I do not have any problem with answering "yes" to the first two:
- the draft belongs to MPLS-TP and, as such, is within the scope of the MPLS WG
- MPLS-TP is of some interest to the MPLS WG (or at least to me). BTW, I've added mpls at ietf.org to the CC list.

My problems start with the  remaining two questions:

- Does the WG to work on a draft that covers the  subject material?

  The answer is far from obvious, since the specific subject of the draft is analysis (sometimes inaccurate) of existing OAM tools vs.
  documented MPLS-TP OAM requirements, with some recommendations as to how to develop specific OAM tools.
  We may, of course, continue to work on the analysis (e.g., by fixing the errors in the document) and update some recommendations.
  However, this would not replace actual work on the new OAM tools or extension of the existing ones.

- Is this draft a good enough starting point for further work?
  
  This question assumes that we understand which "further work" we have in mind.
  And this is completely not clear to me, especially when looking at Loa's explanation.
  At least, the usual understanding of "further work" at IETF - to deliver an RFC - seems to be not applicable.
  We have examples of work items that have been adopted as WG documents and eventually published as 
  Informational RFCs while documenting certain status rather than defining some protocols (e.g., 5037 and 5038),
  but I am not sure if  this analogy really holds.
  
  If the objective is to preserve the design team notes, this can be done in many other ways. Just to remind you
  that the "Martini drafts" have never been adopted as WG drafts. This did not prevent Luca from periodically updating
  them in parallel with working on the PWE3 WG documents... And eventually they have been published as Historical RFCs.

I will provide my analysis of specific issues with the draft later in a separate email.

Regards,
     Sasha



> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-tp-bounces at ietf.org 
> [mailto:mpls-tp-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 5:09 PM
> To: Satoru Matsushima; Loa Andersson
> Cc: mpls-tp at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] poll on 
> makingdraft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-07.txt a working group draft
> 
> Hi Satoru,
> 
> I didn't see anyone else answer, so I'll jump in.
> 
> > I'm trying to understand what the purpose of this poll.
> >
> > Does this poll to make decision of MPLS-TP OAM solution, or
> > to make sure a current status of mpls-tp oam considerations?
> 
> Neither of these.
> 
> This poll is to decide whether the MPLS working group wants 
> to adopt this 
> draft as a work in progress to be developed further under the 
> care of the 
> MPLS working group.
> 
> The material questions are:
> - is this within the scope of the MPLS working group?
> - is there sufficient interest in the broader topic (MPLS-TP)?
> - does the working group want to work on a draft that covers
>    this subject material?
> - is this draft a good starting point for further work?
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls-tp mailing list
> mpls-tp at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
>