Re: [CCAMP] [mpls] Questions on draft-vkst-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-01

Thomas D Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> Fri, 06 January 2012 12:45 UTC

Return-Path: <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C615021F8872; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 04:45:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.067
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.067 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, SARE_SUB_OBFU_OTHER=0.135]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id irXiZ-Hmp3Ez; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 04:45:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0A8121F8591; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 04:45:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.76] (static-72-71-250-38.cncdnh.fast04.myfairpoint.net [72.71.250.38]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2EFC203F58A; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 07:45:47 -0500 (EST)
References: <CABU764s08xA-sVn8oBw56_w+uWZ0JTggWpp0oXmv+edZ__eofg@mail.gmail.com> <4F0342A9.1000301@cisco.com> <0D57BB9E-5415-44CF-A553-A61E9E86E49E@lucidvision.com> <CA+RyBmU6Y+zty8NHODXyOdGErhq-8pbSk9QuOBi0-EGvLwesOw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmU6Y+zty8NHODXyOdGErhq-8pbSk9QuOBi0-EGvLwesOw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-FA5B4631-8B44-43F4-9590-2D58EF9A7A4E
Message-Id: <709A4494-16A8-4010-8EBE-93BCBDB15E3D@lucidvision.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9A405)
From: Thomas D Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 07:45:47 -0500
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "ccamp@ietf.org" <ccamp@ietf.org>, Jaihari Kalijanakiraman <jaiharik@ipinfusion.com>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [mpls] Questions on draft-vkst-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-01
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 12:45:49 -0000

I need to dig up the email, but I am pretty sure that Matthew had sent out a note clarifying things for PWE3. For MPLS I believe that George made the statement at the meeting (the second one in Taipei).  In any event, the point still remains that that there is no clear and consistent directive on this from the IESG right now across various WGs where it needs to be.

--Tom




On Jan 5, 2012, at 6:37 PM, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Tom, et al.,
> I had to refresh my recollection of the discussion in Taipei. According to minutes we don't have the decision regarding the use of MIBs to configure MPLS-TP objects. Somewhere in my memory stuck that the proposal was to limit new MPLS-TP MIBs to R/O and I wonder if it is self-inflicted memory or one of options chairs and the WG is looking into.
> 
> Regards,
> Greg
> 
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> wrote:
> 
>        Stewart,
> 
>        The question of whether or not to allow "configuration" via the OAM protocols (or protocol extensions) was something I raised several months ago in PWE3, although it was also discussed in MPLS as I recall in Taipei as well. It seems to have arisen again.   The conclusions in PWE3 were to allow configuration of only OAM-related things (i.e.: not allowing expansion of the protocols for general configuration). Presumably configuration via MIBs there is still okay. In MPLS I recall the chairs stating that configuration was a thing reserved for NetConf when the question of MIB-based configuration was raised for WG MIB drafts in general (and in particular WRT to the MPLS-TP MIBs).    Those positions seem slightly at odds with each other.  And now your answer now seems inconsistent with those as well.
> 
>        Can we get a single answer from the ADs/IESG on this that pertains to all MPLS-TP related work?
> 
>        --Tom
> 
> 
> On Jan 3, 2012, at 1:02 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> 
> >
> >> 2. Will this MIB be enhanced also to configure "*Y.1731 based OAM for MPLS-TP*"?
> >>
> > Without prejudice to any decisions on Y.1731 and MPLS-TP.
> >
> > Wouldn't such a MIB be a derivative of the Y.1731 MIB?
> >
> > Stewart
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > mpls@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>