[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PWE3] draft-mohan-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-00.txt as WG draft
Hi Luca,
I concur with Dinesh and the meeting minutes were clear. We actually
proposed the merging as reflected in the minutes Yakov sent out. The
concensus was to progress this draft independently as the other mapping
draft was in LC, considered to be wrapped up, and should not be delayed.
The MPLS-Ethernet OAM would have been a significant new addition. The
authors acted accordingly and sent out the new updated draft addressing
the comments in the meeting.
The Ethernet OAM was needed and I think you expressed that as well.
Since it was new most people did not want to hold up the mapping draft
you are working on that existed for a long time without Ethernet OAM or
Etehrnet-MPLS OAM interworking and went to LC without that. As pointed,
they were explicitely excluded. There was no effort to add that until
now!. There is now a draft on that topic on its own. The draft was well
accepted by the group and the decision was made to progress it
seperatly.
Why would the seperation decision change now and how would that impact
the progress of either! However, that is probably a wider question to
the chairs. I am just reflecting what happened during the meeting and
would have helped to know that the decision changed somehow or did it?.
It would also have been good to discuss how the existing Ethernet-MPLS
OAM Interworking draft could be merged with the other mapping draft if
the WG were to change the decision made at the meeting, as the work
exists already. There was no hesitation to do that in the beginning by
the authors (we proposed that) and the authors acted upon WG decision.
So, in what you mentioned below, are you proposing to the WG to merge
draft-mohan-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-01.txt in the message mapping draft
again? Just trying to get a clarification as to what is the intention
here and what is being proposed.
Thanks,
Nabil
-----Original Message-----
From: pwe3-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Luca Martini
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 1:40 PM
To: Eric Gray
Cc: Yaakov Stein; Monique-Jean Morrow1; pwe3 pwe3; Stewart Bryant
Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-mohan-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-00.txt as WG draft
Eric Gray wrote:
> Just to add to what Yaakov says, the message mapping draft version
> currently available in the draft repository says explicitly that it
> does not include Ethernet OAM (therefore
> - presumably - does not include Ethernet OAM interworking).
>
> The wording chosen in the message mapping draft appears to be a "scope
> statement" rather than an editorial note (such as might be included if
> this was work for further study in that draft).
>
>
That will change shortly.
The message mapping draft is in a very poor state. Have you read it
recently ?
I will be done shortly with a new version , but I'm not sure we can get
all the changes needed by the deadline.
What is missing:
- ATM and static PW/BFD message mapping
- Handling of Standby state.
- All ethernet message mapping.
- L2TP message mapping is broken.
Luca
> --
> Eric Gray
> Principal Engineer
> Ericsson
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: pwe3-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of Yaakov Stein
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 12:31 PM
>> To: Dinesh Mohan; Luca Martini; Thomas Nadeau
>> Cc: Monique-Jean Morrow1; pwe3 pwe3; Stewart Bryant
>> Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-mohan-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-00.txt
>> as WG draft
>>
>> Luca and Dinesh
>>
>> Quote from Philadelphia minutes :
>>
>> Yaakov Stein - this is important work. Have you also looked into
>> .3ah? We need
>> this covered too.
>> Nabil: I thought we did, because we cover link level defects. We
>> need to go back
>> and make sure this is covered.
>> Ali Sajassi: This is a very good comment. Counts for ELMI too in
>> MEF.
>> Luca Martini: I have asked for this years ago, and chairs did not
>> want to put
>> into. I am in favour of putting this into message mapping.
>> Stewart - don't remember, but msg-map is quite mature
>> Luca Martini - this will generate more interest again and we can
>> progress this.
>> Stewart - Monique is the editor and she just refreshed it.
>> It would be good to
>> review msg-map, and progress Ethernet separately as some more
>> material to add.
>> Yaakov Stein - agrees should be separate, and not hold up message
>> map.
>> Danny: is there consistent terminology with OAM and redundancy
>> drafts?
>> Nabil: The mapping draft is most advanced, and common authors with
>> redundancy,
>> so hope they are consistent, but need to check.
>>
>> Stewart: if existing OAM message mapping draft is nearly done,
>> then keep
>> separate so as not to hold up.
>>
>> Luca Martini: what will the IESG say without the lack of Ethernet?
>> Stewart: put in informative reference to Ethernet doc.
>> Co-authers need to add
>> informative reference, and then we will last call it.
>> George Swallow: The way the industry is going, the Ethernet is the
>> most
>> important part.
>>
>> I think we see that Tom/Luca's initiative to merge this into the
>> oam-msg-map draft was addressed, and that the majority wanted it to
>> be kept separate.
>>
>> I am sure that none of us expected to find two parallel versions of
>> this work.
>>
>> The decision was based on oam-msg-map taking too long.
>> If the present authors of oam-msg-map are now determined to push this
>> through QUICKLY, then I am not against cutting and pasting Dinesh's
>> draft into oam-msg-map.
>> This may actually speed things up, as
>> draft-mohan-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk is not even a WG item yet.
>> Of course, if we do merge the documents, then the authors of the
>> second need to be credited.
>> Since that would overflow the already extensive author list, there
>> could be 2 editors (e.g. <Luca OR Monique> AND Dinesh) and the rest
>> of the authors be pushed down to an author's section.
>>
>> However, I would like to reiterate what I said in Philadelphia.
>> I am not a great fan of OAM mapping at all, and wouldn't care if the
>> present oam-msg-map draft died a natural death.
>> Ethernet to Ethernet PW OAM interworking is an evil, but frequently a
>> necessary one.
>> Work on it needs to be expedited.
>>
>> Y(J)S
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: pwe3-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of Dinesh Mohan
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 5:09 PM
>> To: Luca Martini; Thomas Nadeau
>> Cc: Monique-Jean Morrow1; pwe3 pwe3; Stewart Bryant
>> Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-mohan-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-00.txt
>> as WG draft
>>
>> Luca,
>>
>> This is certainly a news to me!!! Is this already a foregone
>> conclusion
>> - where is the process????
>>
>> I, and so will other authors, will certainly appreciate some sort of
>> headup.
>>
>> ---
>> Dinesh
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Luca Martini [mailto:lmartini at cisco.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 10:04 AM
>> To: Thomas Nadeau
>> Cc: Mohan, Dinesh (CAR:NP02); Stewart Bryant; pwe3 pwe3; Monique-Jean
>> Morrow1
>> Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-mohan-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-00.txt
>> as WG draft
>>
>> Thomas Nadeau wrote:
>>
>>> I don't understand why. It overlaps with the draft in
>>>
>> that area by
>>
>>
>>> %100. Monique and Luca are doing the edits on the draft right now.
>>> What would be a more sensible approach would be to review what they
>>> are doing and see what doesn't overlap and make sure it
>>>
>> goes in there.
>>
>>
>>> The draft is nearly ready for WG LC, so it would be more prudent to
>>> put it there. It would also be less confusing to see
>>>
>> another draft on
>>
>>> the same topic.
>>>
>>>
>> I'm working on this now, I am finishing the ATm setions , then i'll
>> include the ethernet part of this document.
>> Luca
>>
>>
>>> --Tom
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Tom,
>>>>
>>>> The draft had been structured to allow integration into the
>>>> draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map however following discussions in both
>>>> pwe3 and l2vpn WG, it was indicated that it would be worthwhile to
>>>> progress the draft independently.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Dinesh
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: pwe3-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces at ietf.org]
>>>>
>> On Behalf
>>
>>>> Of Thomas Nadeau
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 8:10 AM
>>>> To: stbryant at cisco.com
>>>> Cc: pwe3
>>>> Subject: Re: [PWE3] draft-mohan-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-00.txt as WG
>>>> draft
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How does this draft differ from
>>>> draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-06.txt
>>>> which
>>>> is already a PWE3 WG item that is nearly complete? It seems to me
>>>> that after a quick read, your document is providing the ethernet
>>>> component that was agreed to be in the mapping document.
>>>>
>>>> --Tom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> We have a request to accept MPLS and Ethernet OAM Interworking
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-mohan-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk-00.txt
>>>>>
>>>>> as a working group draft.
>>>>>
>>>>> The authors thought that PWE3 had already agreed to this, but the
>>>>> minutes of the last meeting do not say that, and in any
>>>>>
>> case we did
>>
>>>>> not do a list poll.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please can we have views on whether to accept as WG draft by COB
>>>>> 15th July.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> Stewart/Danny
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> pwe3 mailing list
>>>>> pwe3 at ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> pwe3 mailing list
>>>> pwe3 at ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>>>
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pwe3 mailing list
>> pwe3 at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>> _______________________________________________
>> pwe3 mailing list
>> pwe3 at ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3 at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3 at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3