Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the cooperation on MPLS-TP
Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> Sat, 07 February 2009 14:57 UTC
Return-Path: <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
X-Original-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC40A3A68C8 for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Feb 2009 06:57:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qJ02WOl0SPrN for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Feb 2009 06:57:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41EC63A67FA for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Feb 2009 06:57:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6680F3834FF5; Sat, 7 Feb 2009 09:57:58 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at www.lucidvision.com
Received: from lucidvision.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (static-72-71-250-34.cncdnh.fios.verizon.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7Yj7noQZbKMJ; Sat, 7 Feb 2009 09:57:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [192.168.1.120] (static-72-71-250-36.cncdnh.fios.myfairpoint.net [72.71.250.36]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67F973834FE6; Sat, 7 Feb 2009 09:57:56 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <80A68A44-AA52-4364-AF15-418D2D950198@lucidvision.com>
From: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
To: davarish@yahoo.com
In-Reply-To: <000401c988c4$d1cf4880$756dd980$@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2009 09:57:55 -0500
References: <49803887.8000301@pi.nu> <6FD21B53861BF44AA90A288402036AB401E5C5E7@FRVELSMBS21.ad2.ad.alcatel.com> <498B2886.2000901@cisco.com> <8c99930d0902051122m13a17c98v4c9f399e747b671c@mail.gmail.com> <498C169B.80702@chello.nl><498C2261.30208@cisco.com> <498C65A1.50205@chello.nl><498C74BC.5080103@cisco.com> <00c601c98885$e575cba0$b06162e0$@com><EC5B248E13A6A7419C388615FADC5C970B637367@proton.jnpr.net> <00d501c98894$2cb92bc0$862b8340$@com> <C2851245E9854E69A7A54FDD07C6E543@your029b8cecfe> <000401c988c4$d1cf4880$756dd980$@com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
Cc: 'BUSI ITALO' <Italo.Busi@alcatel-lucent.it>, mpls-tp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the cooperation on MPLS-TP
X-BeenThere: mpls-tp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: MPLS-TP Mailing list <mpls-tp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls-tp>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls-tp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2009 14:57:56 -0000
> Hi Adrian and Tom, > > I am personally in favour of deprecating T-MPLS, because I think the > industry needs one set of standard and having two will lead to > confusion. > But I don't think T-MPLS is dangerous for the public > "Internet" (sine MPLS > or T-MPLS are not used in the public Internet) , Sharam, I am a little surprised by your assertion above that MPLS is not used in the public Internet. The reality is quite the contrary. Perhaps you meant something else or this is a typo? --Tom > and I also don't think not > following IETF change procedures is a convincing argument (because > one might > come up with a valid protocol without following the IETF change > process). > > Best regards, > Shahram > > -----Original Message----- > From: mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf > Of Adrian Farrel > Sent: February-06-09 3:59 PM > To: davarish@yahoo.com; 'Thomas Walsh'; stbryant@cisco.com; > hhelvoort@chello.nl > Cc: 'BUSI ITALO'; mpls-tp@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the cooperation on > MPLS-TP > > Shahram, > > Trying to defuse a little... > I'm not sure that discussing the IETF behavior is entirely helpful, > but for > reference, RFCs that are "replaced" are marked in the RFC list as > 'obsolete.' RFCs that are no longer relevant are marked as > 'historic' and > RFCs that are considered harmful are obsoleted by a new RFC that > describes > how they are harmful. > > What is at stake here is what is most helpful to the community at > large. If > a technology (e.g. T-MPLS) is being replaced by another technology > (MPLS-TP) > > by wide consensus of the community (ITU-T and IETF) it is not > helpful to > allow people to think that the old technology is still valid and worth > implementing. Doing so would mislead people into thinking that they > there is > > community support for the technology. A new hardware company coming > to the > list of Recommendations might conclude that the industry supports the > technology and might waste valuable development time pursuing the > technology. > > Given that the IETF has persuaded the ITU-T that T-MPLS should not > be worked > > on further and should be replaced by MPLS-TP, it is dangerously > misleading > to leave the T-MPLS Recommendations "lying around". > > The agreement in Geneva seems to have been a compromise. The IETF > requested > that the ITU-T should delete the existing T-MPLS Recommendations. > The ITU-T > has decided to leave the Recommendations in place until they are > "replaced" > by the v2 Recommendations that will move to MPLS-TP. It is debateable > whether this replacement will mean that the v1 Recommendations are > 'deprecated', 'obsoleted', or merely 'replaced'. It would seem > sensible, > however, to note that G.xxxx v2 completely replaces G.xxxx v1 even > if the > latter remains available in the repository. Someone implementing or > deploying G.xxxx would take the most recent version. > > Actually, I had some reservations about the agreement in Geneva. It > seems to > > me to be predicated on the ITU-T pulling its finger out and > producing the v2 > > Recommendations. As yet I have not seen even an editor's revisions > of any > one Recommendation (perhaps I have not looked in the right place?). > If the > ITU-T is not willing to produce this work I must assume that the JWT > agreement is not backed by meaningful intent. > > Cheers, > Adrian > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Shahram Davari" <davari@rogers.com> > To: "'Thomas Walsh'" <twalsh@juniper.net>; <davarish@yahoo.com>; > <stbryant@cisco.com>; <hhelvoort@chello.nl> > Cc: "'BUSI ITALO'" <Italo.Busi@alcatel-lucent.it>; <mpls-tp@ietf.org> > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 7:50 PM > Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the cooperation on > MPLS-TP > > >> Hi Tom, >> >> AFAIK IETF doesn't remove an obsolete RFC from its server (e.g. >> RFC2598). >> Are you then asking that ITU should remove obsolete recommendations >> from >> its >> server. >> >> Regards, >> Shahram >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf >> Of Thomas Walsh >> Sent: February-06-09 2:16 PM >> To: davarish@yahoo.com; stbryant@cisco.com; hhelvoort@chello.nl >> Cc: BUSI ITALO; mpls-tp@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the cooperation on >> MPLS-TP >> >> Sharam, >> >> Please note I am not speaking for Stewart here, but this is my own >> reaction to what you just said. >> >> These are two necessary steps for sure and as far as I know are being >> followed. I see nothing inconsistent in what Stuart said. >> >> Bottom line: >> The T-MPLS Recommendations were never submitted according to the IETF >> change process and hence must be removed. >> >> Monique and I just spent two weeks in January at ITU-T SG 13 and SG >> 11. >> We generally found very good cooperation in their understanding that >> they can not publish any change to IP or an MPLS protocol in a >> Recommendation without following the IETF change process. >> >> The JWT agreement had two options (1) and (2). >> >> Option 2 would allow publication of T-MPLS Recommendations by ITU-T >> as >> they currently exist as long as they remove the MPLS Ethertype. >> >> Option (1) does not allow use of the MPLS Ethertype in an ITU-T >> Recommendation unless it's a protocol approved by IETF according to >> its >> change process. And this option conforms to the IETF Change process. >> >> Please do not quote JWT agreements out of context. The JWT agreement >> does not give ITU-T the right to ignore the IETF change process. >> >> ITU-T may freely use IETF approved protocols. T-MPLS is not IETF >> approved according to the change process. IETF has a right to ask for >> these offending documents to be withdrawn. >> >> Just my view, >> >> Tom >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf >>> Of Shahram Davari >>> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 10:08 AM >>> To: stbryant@cisco.com; hhelvoort@chello.nl >>> Cc: 'BUSI ITALO'; mpls-tp@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the cooperation on >> MPLS- >>> TP >>> >>> Hi Stewart, >>> >>> Here is your own report: >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bryant-mpls-tp-jwt-report- >>> 00.txt >>> >>> and here is what it says in your report that ITU-T agreed to do: >>> >>> - Alignment of the current T-MPLS ITU-T Recommendations with MPLS-TP >>> and, >>> - Termination of the work on current T-MPLS. >>> >>> I can't see anywhere in the report the term or intention of >> deprecating. >>> Could you please clarify which part of this report indicates >> deprecating? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Shahram >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf >>> Of Stewart Bryant >>> Sent: February-06-09 12:35 PM >>> To: hhelvoort@chello.nl >>> Cc: BUSI ITALO; mpls-tp@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the cooperation on >> MPLS- >>> TP >>> >>> Huub van Helvoort wrote: >>>> Stewart, >>>> >>>> You replied: >>>> >>>>>> So by keeping the word "depreciation" in the liaison response >>>>>> the whole discussion will start again and as Stuart already >>>>>> mentioned a few times, this is a waste of time and resources. >>>>>> And also it confuses the industry about the position of the IETF. >>>>> >>>>> There is no confusion about the position of the IETF. It >>>>> has quite clearly stated that T-MPLS is a potential >>>>> danger to the Internet and should not be deployed. >>>>> >>>>> The most appropriate action under such circumstances is >>>>> deprecation of the protocol. >>>> >>>> Does this mean that you do not accept the agreement documented >>>> in the JWT report and WP3 report and that all the time spent to >>>> discuss these agreements is wasted and that you want to start >>>> this discussion again. >>>> >>> Huub >>> >>> I can see no logical linkage between my statement and your >>> deduction. Please will you explain it to me. >>> >>> Stewart >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpls-tp mailing list >>> mpls-tp@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mpls-tp mailing list >>> mpls-tp@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp >> _______________________________________________ >> mpls-tp mailing list >> mpls-tp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpls-tp mailing list >> mpls-tp@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp >> > > _______________________________________________ > mpls-tp mailing list > mpls-tp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp > > _______________________________________________ > mpls-tp mailing list > mpls-tp@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp >
- [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the cooperati… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Ross Callon
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… BUSI ITALO
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Drake, John E
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Ross Callon
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Thomas Walsh
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Monique Morrow (mmorrow)
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… George Swallow
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Thomas Walsh
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Thomas Walsh
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Thomas Walsh
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Thomas Walsh
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Monique Morrow (mmorrow)
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Maarten Vissers
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… BUSI ITALO
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Drake, John E
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Thomas Walsh
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Thomas Walsh
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Thomas Walsh
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Thomas Walsh
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Thomas Walsh
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Thomas Walsh
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Monique Morrow (mmorrow)
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Ross Callon
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Ben Niven-Jenkins
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Luyuan Fang (lufang)
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Shahram Davari
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Maarten Vissers
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Nadeau,TD,Tom,DMF R
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Maarten Vissers
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Maarten Vissers
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Stewart Bryant
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Maarten Vissers
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… BUSI ITALO
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Maarten Vissers
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… BUSI ITALO
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Maarten Vissers
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Monique Morrow (mmorrow)
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… BUSI ITALO
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Thomas Walsh
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Thomas Walsh
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… BUSI ITALO
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… BUSI ITALO
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Malcolm Betts
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Thomas Walsh
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Huub van Helvoort
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Thomas Nadeau
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… BUSI ITALO
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… neil.2.harrison
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… BUSI ITALO
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… David Allan
- Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the coope… neil.2.harrison