RE: FW: LastCall:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationofan Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) toInformational RFC

[Rui Costa <[e-mail]>]

"We certainly have running code, widely deployed (although my request on the MPLS list as to which manufacturers' boxes were involved never did get answered:-("	
Hope these help:	
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fang-mpls-tp-oam-considerations	
http://www.eantc.com/fileadmin/eantc/downloads/events/2007-2010/CEWC09/EANTC-CEWC2009-WhitePaper-v1_2.pdf	

Regards,	
Rui

-----Original Message-----
From: t.petch [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: sexta-feira, 23 de Março de 2012 09:58
To: Alia Atlas; Rui Costa
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: FW: LastCall:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationofan Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) toInformational RFC

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alia Atlas" <[e-mail]>
To: "Rui Costa" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 10:07 PM

Rui,

Perhaps more familiarity with the related history over the last several years would help?  I can recommend the MPLS list archives.
Otherwise, I find this remarkably disingenuous.

This is a case of a second solution that was clearly rejected by the MPLS working group (despite in-person histrionics causing the ADs to have to threaten to close down the WG meeting).  Then the solution was taken to the ITU study group - where it could also not get enough traction for their normal process.  It is still not approved as a recommendation.

<tp>
Alia

Were the roles reversed and the second solution be a product of the IETF that the IETF were trying to get more widely approved, would the IETF allocate a code point?

I think that it would.  We certainly have running code, widely deployed (although my request on the MPLS list as to which manufacturers' boxes were involved never did get answered:-(.

We have a rough consensus; not unanimity, and not enough of a consensus to satisfy the processes of the ITU-T but I think enough to satisfy the consensus-judgers of the IETF (as ever, we do not vote, a majority of e-mails for one point of view may be discounted, it is the quality of the views expressed that matters as much or more).

So applying the standards to which we work, I think this is another reason why we should approve this I-D.

Tom Petch

</tp>
To imply that the IETF should simply trust the allocated ACH code point to not be abused both seems optimistic and sets a dreadful precedent.

Making an allocation available for an approved recommendation version is a tolerable way of reducing the deliberate use of an experimental
value.   Handing the keys over for any conceivable use, or even just
the uses in the OAM RFC that have been adequately met by IETF WG-consensus based technology, does not seem appropriate.

Alia



On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Rui Costa <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I fail to understand the issue under discussion.
>
> Can't imagine IEEE denying to grant Ethertype 0x86DD. If, however, 
> from absurd
that had happened, would the world stop or would we take the same information from the IP header version field?
>
> Regards,
> Rui
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf 
> Of Alia
Atlas
> Sent: quarta-feira, 21 de Março de 2012 15:30
> To: D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: הנדון: RE: Last
Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to Informational RFC
>
> Considering that the need for this code point is a result of the ITU 
> not fully complying with the IETF agreement, I cannot agree that we 
> should simply allocate a code point for whatever the ITU wants to do 
> in the future.
>
> It seems the best of the options to allocate a code point (much better 
> than squatting) - but tie it to a stable reference. If the ITU can't 
> provide a stable reference, then perhaps an RFC is the best way.
> There are lots of folks with opinions on the best procedure, but I 
> certainly don't support the idea of not restricting the usage to what 
> is clearly defined.
>
> Alia