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

["Shahram Davari" <[e-mail]>]

Tom,

What I meant was that MPLS/T-MPLS are not used at Internet peering points
(E-NNI). Off course a single ISP can use MPLS or T-MPLS in their own
network, but they are in full control of their own network and could make
sure incompatible protocols are not used or are used in a controlled manner.

-Shahram

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Nadeau [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: February-07-09 9:58 AM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: 'Adrian Farrel'; 'Thomas Walsh'; [e-mail];
[e-mail]; 'BUSI ITALO'; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the cooperation on MPLS-TP



> 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On  
> Behalf
> Of Adrian Farrel
> Sent: February-06-09 3:59 PM
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls-tp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
>