Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] MPLS WG slides from CMCC

[Christopher LILJENSTOLPE <[e-mail]>]

Greetings Huub,

	I don't believe I do.  The requirements document just that, requirements, not solutions.  After RFC5860 was published, a few potential solutions to the requirements set out in RFC5860 were proposed, one of those is bhh.  Just because bhh supposedly responds to RFC5860 does not mean that it automatically becomes a standard.  The road to standardization has many corpses along it (look at the road to IPng, for example, or idr).  Just because it responds to RFC5860 does not change the fact that  a draft is just that, a draft.  That draft isn't even accepted as a working-group document yet.  

	Therefore, basing your technology around it is a dice roll.  I assume that CMCC has evaluated the risk of draft-bhh not becoming a standard and has decided that that risk is outweighed by whatever benefits CMCC will derive from deploying a solution based around draft-bhh, even if it does not become a standard.  If they have, then good on them, do what you need to do to keep your network running (I've ventured off the trodden path once or twice myself). 

	However, if CMCC (or any other carrier) have decided to deploy draft-bhh based on an understanding that draft-bhh WOULD become a standard, that would be an unfortunate misunderstanding.  It is my understanding that the working group has never guaranteed that draft-bhh would become a STANDARD, and if that had been signaled, then I would expect draft-bhh to be a working-group draft, at least.  I am not saying that it won't become a standard, I'm just saying that one (or a few) operators deciding to deploy something does not automatically grant it a quick path to standardization in the IETF, especially if other operators have a differing opinion of that draft proposal.

	Christopher



	


On 14Dec2010, at 18.51, Huub van Helvoort wrote:

> Hello Chris,
> 
> You wrote:
> 
>> My concern here is that the requirements are based on a DRAFT.
> 
> I think you have the order wrong.
> The MPLS-TP OAM requirements are in RFC5860:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5860
> 
> draft-bhh-MPLS-TP-OAM-Y1731 is a solution based on RFC5860.
> 
>> Not that
>> that doesn't happen from time to time, but that does not mean that the
>> IETF must then standardize that DRAFT. Someone writing a spec based on
>> DRAFTs are taking an (educated) gamble that that DRAFT will be
>> standardized and supported by other vendors.
> 
> draft-bhh-MPLS-TP-OAM-Y1731 provides a set of tools that fits in
> a larger toolbox with multiple tools.
> 
>> In short, the decision, is, of course, the prerogative of the purchaser,
> 
> The service provider can pick a selection of the tools for
> use in his network by enabling the ones he needs.
> CMCC and many other service providers have a preference for
> the tools provided by draft-bhh-MPLS-TP-OAM-Y1731.
> 
> Best regards, Huub.
> 
> ===================
>> On 11Nov2010, at 18.52, Larry wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear Huub:
>>> 
>>> Yes!
>>> Actually, China Mobile has introduced 38,000 PTN equipments based on
>>> pre-standard G.8114 in 2009. China Mobile will introduce more than
>>> 110,000 PTN equipments based on draft-bhh-MPLS-TP-OAM-Y1731 in 2010.
>>> We will upgrade G.8114 to Y.1731 based OAM by the end of this year.
>>> Because Draft-bhh and relevant CCSA standard are based on Y.1731, so I
>>> use Y.1731 to present all of them.
>>> Thank you!
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> 
>>> Han Li
>>> 
>>> *************************************************************************
>>> Han Li, Ph.D
>>> China Mobile Research Institute
>>> Unit 2, 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave, Xuanwu District, Beijing 100053, China
>>> Fax: [phone]
>>> MOBILE: [phone]
>>> *************************************************************************
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --- 10年11月11日，周四, Huub van Helvoort <[e-mail]
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 写道：
>>> 
>>>> 发件人: Huub van Helvoort <[e-mail]
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>> 主题: Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] MPLS WG slides from CMCC
>>>> 收件人: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> 抄送: "'lihan'" <[e-mail]
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>, "Ad hoc MPLS-TP"
>>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>,
>>>> "[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>>> 日期: 2010年11月11日,周四,下午3:21
>>>> Li Han, 你好！
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you very much for this informative information.
>>>> 
>>>>> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/misc/mpls-tp/attachment/wiki/meeting-notes/CMCC%20implementation%20and%20consideration%20for%20MPLS-TP-01.pdf
>>>>> 
>>>>> There are links from the meetings materials page
>>>>> (http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/misc/mpls-tp/wiki/meeting-notes)
>>>> and from the wiki
>>>>> home page (http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/misc/mpls-tp/)
>>>> 
>>>> I have a question about slide 3:
>>>> the last bullet states: OAM: "based on Y.1731 and pre-
>>>> standard G.8114"
>>>> 
>>>> By "based on Y.1731" do you refer to
>>>> draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731
>>>> and the CCSA standard that will soon be published?
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you, Huub.
> 
> 
> -- 
> *****************************************************************
>                         我爱外点一七三一
> _______________________________________________
> mpls-tp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp

---
李柯睿
Check my PGP key here:
https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc