Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements (MPLS-TP Requirements) toProposed Standard

["Tom.Petch" <[e-mail]>]

I see some difficulties with the references in this I-D.

a) The security section of this I-D says
see    [I-D.ietf-mpls-mpls-and-gmpls-security-framework]
which is an informative reference.

I believe that security should be normative, not informative, even in this, a
requirements (as opposed to a protocol) draft.

b) The terminology section of this draft overlaps with that in an Informational
Reference [I-D.helvoort-mpls-tp-rosetta-stone] "A Thesaurus for the Terminology
used in MPLS-TP drafts/RFCs and  ITU-T's Transport Network Recommendations."
(now republished as a Working Group Draft)
which will doubtless progress to an RFC but as Informational.  I see this as
problematic; the two may be in step now but I am doubtful that they will be as
and when this last gets amended in the course of its development.  The mpls-tp
list has seen some vigorous debate already about the meaning of terms (eg
associated bidirectional, AIS).  Sometimes, the same concept has a different
term in IETF versus ITU-T (versus IEEE) while the same term may also be used for
a different concept.

RFC4397 is the product of a similar, earlier issue and is another potential
overlap.

The definitions in this I-D may be normative for this I-D but if they
diverge from definitions in other I-Ds, we are storing up problems for the
future.

On balance, I believe that this rosetta-stone should be a Normative Reference,
ideally removing the overlapping definitions.

Tom Petch

Original Message -----
From: "The IESG" <[e-mail]>
To: "IETF-Announce" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 11:31 PM
Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements (MPLS-TP Requirements)
toProposed Standard

> The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
> (mpls) to consider the following document:
>
> - 'MPLS-TP Requirements '
>    <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements-09.txt> as a Proposed Standard
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the
> [e-mail] mailing lists by 2009-07-16. Exceptionally,
> comments may be sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please
> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-requirements-09.txt
>
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
>
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=18021&rf
c_flag=0
>