Re: MPLS OAM & the IETF

[Matt Squire <[e-mail]>]

A vote for (1).  The IETF should focus on the simple and ip-oriented
utilities and get the darn thing done.  The ITU should focus on the more
generic MPLS utilities which need to get done but is a larger problem.  

Certainly this might lead to interoperability problems, but I hope the
ITU will submit drafts to the IETF mailing lists for review.  Drawing on
the expertise of the IETF can help minimize the problems.  There are
also many testing labs and bakeoffs where problems can get found.  Every
extension has the possibility of creating interoperability problems yet
they seem to keep coming, so lets split it up and be done with it.

- Matt

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)