Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF

[Ping Pan <[e-mail]>]

Scott,

Here is my view: we have been looking at this matter for a long time. As 
the same time, the data-plane problem has not gone away and is making 
every provider nervous.

Part of the culture in many standardization bodies is a tendency to 
debate and argue and raise every issue to the highest level of 
abstraction. This process has almost become one of the elegance of the 
definition of the problem rather than the actual execution of an action 
plan. IETF should avoid this.

In option 1, we will split the task among IETF and ITU. Don't think this 
will fly. First of all, we have just at least doubled our engineering 
work to solve the same problem. Second, we need to develop yet another 
plan to solve the integration problem so that the providers can actually 
  figure out what to do in case of network trouble.

Option 2 does sound a lot better, and I hope people can focus on solving 
the problem.

Regards!

- Ping


Scott Bradner wrote:

> It seems to me that there are two options on what we (the IETF) could do at
> this point.
> 
> 0/ you think I do not understand the issue
> 
> 1/ split the tasks:  The IETF focus on the ping/traceroute mechanisms and
> cede to the ITU-T work on the more telco-like OAM.  In this option the IETF
> would publish draft-ohta-mpls-label-value-01.txt as an RFC and assign an
> MPLS reserved label value for use by the ITU-T to identify Y.1711
> information.
> 
> 2/ The IETF work on a suite of technologies ranging from the
> ping/traceroute-like mechanisms to the more telephone system OAM ones.  The
> IETF could try to figure out how to do this in conjunction with the ITU,
> though it is a bit late for that considering the state of Y.1711, or be in
> competition with the ITU-T.  
> 
> So - please indicate your opinion on how the IETF should proceed
> 
> 1 - split the tasks between the IETF and the ITU-T
> 2 - IETF produce standards track documents covering both areas
>   2a - trying to work with the ITU-T to produce common technology
>   2b - in competition with the ITU-T
> 
> In any case, it would be good to provide feedback to the ITU-T on Y.1711 if
> you see anything that looks broken.
> 
> 
> Scott (with sub-ip AD hat on)
> 
>