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

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Whoa there Dobbin!

If you must quote people out of context, please at lead quote whole 
subordinate clauses. Preferably whole sentences.

I said "If the ITU-T is not willing to produce this work I must assume that 
the JWT agreement is not backed by meaningful intent."

Sounds like an accurate statement.
- It is a statement of my predicted behaviour
- It is not (IMHO) a reasonable cause and effect

I understand that the ITU does not spit out working drafts in quite the same 
way as the IETF. The tendency being to cluster drafting around the interim 
meetings. However, in view of the Rapporteur's statement that he expects to 
see editor's revisions (presumably with meaningful content/changes?) before 
he will agree to the scheduling of an interim meeting, I would hope to see 
some work starting soon.

The debate about whether the I-Ds are stable is valid. If I was editing a 
new revision of a Recommendation, I would want to know that the I-Ds I 
depended on were about 75% stable before I started. But I don't think I 
would need over 95% stability until I was close to finished with my work.

Cheers,
Adrian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "BUSI ITALO" <[e-mail]>
To: "Thomas Walsh" <[e-mail]>; "Maarten Vissers" 
<[e-mail]>; "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>; 
<[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:28 AM
Subject: RE: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the cooperation on MPLS-TP


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
>
>