Re: [mpls] R: RE: R: Re: LastCall: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt> (Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect indicationfor MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard

Dear Erminio,
even though I'm not an operator but I think that you've went bit too far in
your first generalization.
"Every generalization is wrong, including this one"

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:32 PM, erminio.ottone_69@libero.it <
erminio.ottone_69@libero.it> wrote:

> The technical concern raised during the WG poll has not been resolved so
> the
> history definetely matters.
>
> Quoting RFC5921:
>
>   There are thus two objectives for MPLS-TP:
>
>   1.  To enable MPLS to be deployed in a transport network and operated
>       in a similar manner to existing transport technologies.
>
>   2.  To enable MPLS to support packet transport services with a
>       similar degree of predictability to that found in existing
>       transport networks.
>
> Based on the extensive comments provided by transport operators and ITU-T
> community, the solution in this draft is useless in case 1.
>
> The fact that the solution in this draft is not backward compatible with
> existing IP/MPLS BFD implementations means that this solution is also
> uselesee
> in case 2.
>
> Are there other undocumented use cases for MPLS-TP deployments?
>
> >----Messaggio originale----
> >Da: nurit.sprecher@nsn.com
> >Data: 7-lug-2011 11.59
> >A: <erminio.ottone_69@libero.it>, <RCosta@ptinovacao.pt>, <ietf@ietf.org
> >,
> "IETF-Announce"<ietf-announce@ietf.org>
> >Cc: <mpls@ietf.org>
> >Ogg: RE: [mpls] R: Re: LastCall:
> &lt;draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt&gt;
> (Proactive      Connectivity    Verification,Continuity Check and Remote
> Defect
> indicationfor   MPLS    Transport       Profile) to Proposed Standard
> >
> >Erminio,
> >I do not think the history is relevant for this specific discussion...
> >Also I find it inappropriate to give statements with no justifications
> >behind.
> >You say: "the solution in this draft is useless for many MPLS-TP
> >deployments.".  in order to seriously consider your comment, you have to
> >show why it is useless and which requirements are not satisfied.
> >Otherwise you cannot expect anyone to refer to your point.
> >Best regards,
> >Nurit
> >
> >P.s. did you mean that the document is useless to available non-standard
> >deployments, e.g. T-MPLS?
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>