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

Thomas Nadeau <> Tue, 03 January 2012 19:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 001735E802C; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 11:03:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.532
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.068, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_OTHER=0.135]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id taj3KNsSqGrd; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 11:03:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E2465E802A; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 11:03:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8990E203A14F; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 14:03:48 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Thomas Nadeau <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 14:03:47 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1)
Cc:,, Jaihari Kalijanakiraman <>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] [mpls] Questions on draft-vkst-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 19:03:50 -0000


	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?


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