Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <[e-mail]>]

         I vote for 2.  Although I think there is room
for input in the form of requirements/requests and such
from the ITU, I think that having to interface with
the ITU for this work is going to lead to interop
problems as well as delay the work.  The IETF created the
standards for MPLS and continues to evolve the technology,
so it makes sense to me that we continue to create and evolve
the standards for managing MPLS.

         --Tom


>Scott Bradner wrote:
>
> >
> > 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)



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.