Re: [CCAMP] [mpls] poll on draft-abfb-mpls-tp-control-plane-framework

    I'd largely agree with Tom on his points. I've just read through the
document and am confused as to what it is trying to accomplish. It seems to
be neither a framework for deploying MPLS-TP, a requirements document for
building MPLS-TP devices, nor a specification for implementing protocols
around MPLS-TP.  IMHO, it seems to be a subset of requirements from 5654
with brief discussions and references. To the reader, this is very confusing
given that the document proclaims that it provides:

the framework for MPLS-TP dynamic provisioning,
   and covers control plane addressing, routing, path computation,
   signaling, traffic engineering,, and path recovery.

    At best, I'd consider the document in its current state as an attempt to
"refine" the requirements from RFC5654 and behave more like a "solution"
document. As an operator, I'd be hard pressed to use the document in its
current state to deploy MPLS-TP.  As someone who has built boxes in the
past, I would be very hard pressed to use this document to build MPLS-TP
boxes, but I will let current vendors speak to that.

    Based on this reading, I'd personally ask the chairs that the document's
structure and purpose be made more clear before proceeding forward with the
draft.

    --Tom

On 3/4/10 11:44 AM, "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com> wrote:

> no/do not support
> 
> Much if not most of this document seems to be a reproduction of other,
> existing
> mpls-tp documents.  The reproductions do not seem to add value.  Thus I cannot
> see how reproducing over 100 requirements already listed elsewhere with an
> identifying number and then giving them a new set of numbers which can easily
> be
> confused with the old numbers will advance this work.
> 
> Much if not most of this document talks much about matters outside the control
> plane and in places would appear to contradict what has already been
> documented.
> 
> There seems little in it that would count as a framework or architecture or
> similar construct (compared to e.g draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework).
> 
> Its target status is Informational, which makes it difficult for any Standards
> Track document to refer to it, and that seems appropriate.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A (ATTLABS)" <db3546@att.com>
> To: "CCAMP" <ccamp@ietf.org>
> Cc: <mpls@ietf.org>; <pwe3@ietf.org>; <mpls-tp@ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 10:53 PM
> Subject: [mpls] poll on draft-abfb-mpls-tp-control-plane-framework
> 
> 
>> All,
>> 
>> This is to start a two week working group poll on making
>> draft-abfb-mpls-tp-control-plane-framework-02.txt as a ccamp working
>> group document. This poll is being initiated at this time as this
>> document is part of the MPLS-TP work and it is needed to progress the
>> work.
>> 
>> Send your response to the ccamp@ietf.org mailing list (only), indicating
>> "yes/support" or "no/do not support".
>> 
>> This poll ends March 12th.
>> 
>> Deborah
>> _______________________________________________
>> mpls mailing list
>> mpls@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp