IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com> Thu, 05 January 2012 23:37 UTC

Return-Path: <gregimirsky@gmail.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 6BFB521F87E4; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 15:37:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.463
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 EbKFaWc+DYxK; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 15:37:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com (mail-tul01m020-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E41921F87CF; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 15:37:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by obcuz6 with SMTP id uz6so1432479obc.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:37:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=mKlAEpSfcMZ7MomThAlsMYiSUehCbb9vGtuAoBi0p8c=; b=KeNoJZvTeIYAaYyiVTqjp7tgoGB1LqbnqntJTSvpumkEyV0kd72nRc82sYmiKAJ6iw hpXsc1UmbdfzKXktQiyjcSZ7/eJicxF7Q09c9HPgum9yftj5S5tOMCjuGezPXpkojZPZ W99zMB83XR3AFlgTdX2vPOyvzKAVEnSiqtZxo=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.193.42 with SMTP id hl10mr3066219obc.61.1325806640232; Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:37:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.38.72 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 15:37:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <0D57BB9E-5415-44CF-A553-A61E9E86E49E@lucidvision.com>
References: <CABU764s08xA-sVn8oBw56_w+uWZ0JTggWpp0oXmv+edZ__eofg@mail.gmail.com> <4F0342A9.1000301@cisco.com> <0D57BB9E-5415-44CF-A553-A61E9E86E49E@lucidvision.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 15:37:20 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+RyBmU6Y+zty8NHODXyOdGErhq-8pbSk9QuOBi0-EGvLwesOw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d044786abd4f87004b5d069c1"
Cc: mpls@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: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 23:37:24 -0000

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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email