[mpls-tp] R: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-02.txt

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

I do not think the document is ready for publication.

1.	Title, scope description and content of the draft are inconsistent

The title implies an analysis document where different options are analyzed against the requirements and their pros and cons are compared.

The text in the scope section seems to imply this document provides an overview of the MPLS-TP OAM documents.

Content of sections 3.6.1, 3.7.1 and 3.8.1 is providing neither an overview nor an analysis.

The scope of this document needs to be clarified and title, scope description and content of the draft kept consistent with this scope:

a) if the scope is to provide analysis, detailed analysis of the different options need to be provided within the document;

b) if the scope is to provide an overview of the OA M documents, it is too early to move this document forward given the status of the OAM documents.

2.	Section 1.1: the description of the interoperability requirement provided is incorrect: it is proposed to remove it.

The requirements are to re-use as much as reasonably possible existing MPLS OAM protocols.

However, for example, the lack of progress towards a widely agreed solution to define a CV function based on BFD to meet key MPLS-TP OAM requirements shows significant challenges remain.

3.	Section 1.1: the description of the MEAD team decision is not fully correct.

For example, the agreement was to extend BFD to meet the ITU-T functional requirements and to merge between the following two documents:
- http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fulignoli-mpls-tp-bfd-cv-proactive-and-rdi-01
- http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boutros-mpls-tp-cv-cc-00

The current WG draft is different from each of these two individual drafts; it provides a much worse technical solution and its adoption as WG document has been strongly challenged by many IETF participants.

4.	Section 2 paraphrases the OAM requirements of RFC 5860 and functional descriptions of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework.

I propose to make just make a normative reference to these documents or to include a "precedence" rule in case of conflict between this document and the referenced documents.

Italo

PS - To avoid confusion to the editors, I would clarify that I am cross-posting my comments because they are indented to be both WG LC comments from an IETF participants as well as input to the ITU-T review. Irrespectively on the SDO, these comments represent my opinion about the document.

> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] Per conto di Loa
> Andersson
> Inviato: venerdì 22 ottobre 2010 2.04
> A: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; MPLS-TP ad hoc team
> Oggetto: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-
> 02.txt
> 
> Working Group,
> 
> this is to start a an MPLS working group last call on
> 
> draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-02.txt
> 
> This working group last call ends November 14.
> 
> Please send comments to the [e-mail] mailing list.
> 
> Loa and George
> 
> MPLS WG co-chairs
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Loa Andersson                         email: [e-mail]
> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [e-mail]
> Ericsson Inc                          phone: [phone]
>                                               [phone]
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls