[mpls-tp] R: Use of term "interface" in MPLS-TP Identifiers and OAM Framework drafts

["BUSI, ITALO (ITALO)" <[e-mail]>]

Sasha,

The OAM Framework and Identifier drafts are already using the term "interface" in a consistent way among each other.

According to the Identifiers draft the attachment point to a server MPLS-TP Tunnel is an interface.

The change #2 I am proposing is just aimed at clarifying that the server MPLS-TP tunnel is a server sub-layer and not a server layer as per past discussion.

Italo

> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: Alexander Vainshtein [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Inviato: venerdì 10 dicembre 2010 10.48
> A: BUSI, ITALO (ITALO); [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Oggetto: RE: [mpls-tp] Use of term "interface" in MPLS-TP Identifiers and
> OAM Framework drafts
> 
> Italo,
> Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
> I agree that different MPLS-TP documents treat the term "interface"
> differently, and this adds to the overall havoc.
> 
> I strongly object to treating sub-layers as interfaces in MPLS-TP because
> IMO  this would break the MPLS data plane in an irreparable manner.
> 
> As a consequence I suggest we keep the definition used in the MPLS-TP
> Identifiers draft and rework the OAM framework document accordingly.
> 
> Regards,
>      Sasha
> 
> 
> 
> From: [e-mail] [[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> BUSI, ITALO (ITALO) [[e-mail]]
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 11:00 AM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [mpls-tp] Use of term "interface" in MPLS-TP Identifiers and OAM
> Framework drafts
> 
> 
> I see a lot of comments related to the term "interface" used within the
> OAM Framework draft in the context of the per-interface MIP definition and
> NO comments on the same term used within the Identifiers draft.
> 
> I would like to clarify that the same term "interface" actually represents
> the same concept in both the MPLS-TP Identifiers and MPLS-TP OAM Framework
> drafts.
> 
> I would therefore propose that the following definition is added to both
> drafts:
> 
>  "
> Interface: An interface is the attachment point to a server (sub-)layer
> e.g., MPLS-TP section or MPLS-TP tunnel.
> "
> 
> This definition is taken from the text in section 4 of the Identifiers
> draft with the following proposed changes:
> 
> 1) c/Access Point (AP)/attachment point/ as proposed by ITU-T
> 
> 2) c/layer/(sub-)layer/ to align the definition with the outcome of past
> discussion: label stacking is a form of sub-layering with the MPLS and
> MPLS-TP layer network.
> 
> I have a strong opinion that both the MPLS-TP Identifiers and the MPLS-TP
> OAM Framework must use the same term (and definition) to identify the same
> entity.
> 
> I have a preference to keep the term "interface" on both drafts to speed
> up the work.
> 
> Italo