Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the cooperation on MPLS-TP

["BUSI ITALO" <[e-mail]>]

As a consequence saying that "ITU-T is not willing to produce this work
" is another inaccurate representation of the facts

Italo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Walsh [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 10:37 PM
> To: Maarten Vissers; Adrian Farrel; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: BUSI ITALO; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the 
> cooperation on MPLS-TP
> 
> Martin, 
> 
> You are correct on the procedure regarding the revision of the ITU-T
> drafts.  It was worked out through extensive discussion in 
> Q12/15 and I
> believe all the other relevant questions adopted the same procedure by
> pointing to section 3.6.5.  
> 
> I don't see any reason to change that as the revisions depend on the
> internet drafts being stable.  
> 
> Tom
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Maarten Vissers [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 12:42 AM
> > To: 'Adrian Farrel'; [e-mail]; Thomas Walsh;
> [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]
> > Cc: 'BUSI ITALO'; [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the cooperation on
> MPLS-
> > TP
> > 
> > Adrian,
> > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > I do not understand why you write "if the ITU-T is not willing...".
> You
> > have
> > attended the SG15 meeting and agreed with its report, which 
> states in
> > section 3.6.5:
> > 
> > "Once the internet drafts have reached a reasonable level 
> of stability
> the
> > editors will develop revised versions of the currently in 
> force T-MPLS
> > Recommendations to reflect the IETF MPLS-TP architecture.  
> The editors
> > should consult with the appropriate IETF WG chairs to determine when
> (and
> > which aspects) of the internet drafts are stable enough to allow
> drafting
> > activities to proceed as early as possible.  These revised
> Recommendations
> > will refer to the technology as MPLS-TP.  Work on these revised
> > Recommendations will be advanced by correspondence and at a proposed
> > interim
> > meeting (TD55/PLEN).  The editors are requested to have draft text
> > available
> > at least one month before the interim meeting (i.e. May 
> 1st) to allow
> > other
> > participants to review the drafts and provide contributions 
> to refine
> the
> > text."
> > 
> > The editors of the T-MPLS recommendations should develop revised
> versions
> > once the internet drafts have reached a reasonable level of 
> stability.
> I
> > am
> > not sure if there is any draft that has reached this level at this
> point
> > in
> > time.
> > 
> > Nonetheless as editor of G.8112 I have already started the revision
> > process,
> > but have kept the number of changes to the absolute minimum so far.
> I.e. I
> > have replaced "T-MPLS" by "MPLS-TP", "TTM" by "MTM" and "TM" by "MT"
> in
> > the
> > latest draft revised G.8112 (WD47R1, Oct. 2007) document.
> > 
> > I can share this very first MPLS-TP revised version of 
> G.8112 with you
> > today, or could wait somewhat longer to include more 
> changes. I expect
> > that
> > the same changes can be made to G.8110.1, G.8121, G.8131, G.8151 at
> this
> > point in time. If it is helpful to make those changes and 
> upload those
> > drafts then this can be done. Please let me know and I will 
> upload my
> > initial revision.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Maarten
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf
> > Of Adrian Farrel
> > Sent: vrijdag 6 februari 2009 21:59
> > To: [e-mail]; 'Thomas Walsh'; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]
> > Cc: 'BUSI ITALO'; [e-mail]
> > 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" <[e-mail]>
> > To: "'Thomas Walsh'" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>;
> > <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: "'BUSI ITALO'" <[e-mail]>; 
> <[e-mail]>
> > 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: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > > Behalf Of Thomas Walsh
> > > Sent: February-06-09 2:16 PM
> > > To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > Cc: BUSI ITALO; [e-mail]
> > > 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: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > > Behalf
> > >> Of Shahram Davari
> > >> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 10:08 AM
> > >> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > >> Cc: 'BUSI ITALO'; [e-mail]
> > >> 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: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > > Behalf
> > >> Of Stewart Bryant
> > >> Sent: February-06-09 12:35 PM
> > >> To: [e-mail]
> > >> Cc: BUSI ITALO; [e-mail]
> > >> 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
> > >> [e-mail]
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> mpls-tp mailing list
> > >> [e-mail]
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > mpls-tp mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > mpls-tp mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
> > >
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls-tp mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
> 
>