Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] poll to adopt draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv as a working group document

Huub,

	Sorry for the delay in responding.

	As noted in my reply to Italo, the document is meant to
apply generally, hence it would be inappropriate to specify how
it would be used for a specific application (such as in the case
of a transport profile of MPLS).

	As I told Italo, you (too) are correct that this needs to
be documented somewhere.  Just not here.

	We have had some iterations of the draft since your comment
was posted.  In fact, there will be a new one later today.

	Perhaps it now fits the new name better than it did...

--
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Huub van Helvoort
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 7:56 AM
To: Loa Andersson
Cc: mpls@ietf.org; MPLS-TP ad hoc team; mpls-tp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] poll to adopt draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv as a working group document

No/do not support

The change of the name of this draft gives the impression
that the content of the draft changed as well.
So before it can be adopted the text has to be aligned
with the title: On-demand CV for MPLS-TP.

I see that it is still focused on extending LSP-Ping but
not for use in a transport environment.
It does not indicate where the transport OAM requirements
are met.
It does not indicate how the ACh is used.
What is the meaning of "adjacency" in the context of MPLS-TP?
It does not document how this tool can be used in transport
environment where tools are enabled/disabled static (compared
to the dynamic set-up of LSP-ping.

Regards, Huub.

==============
On 21-06-10 14:07, Loa Andersson wrote:
>
> Working Group,
>
> this email is to start poll to adopt
> draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-on-demand-cv-00.txt
> as an MPLS working group draft.
>
> After recent experience, the chairs would like to remind you all
> what it means to conduct a poll to adopt a draft as a working group
> draft.
>
> - Please recall that the IETF does not "vote." Polls of a working
> group are to gather information to help the chairs make their
> decisions. Voting is not part of the normal working methods of
> an IETF working group.
>
> - The "rough consensus" process used in the working group assumes
> that people expressing opinions are also participating in the
> development of standards documents.
>
> - Subscription to the list specifically to express an opinion is
> noticed by the chairs who has access to information on the new list
> members. Such behavior is not part of the normal working methods.
>
> - The purpose of a poll for adoption is to help the chairs understand
> the level of support for a document (i.e. who has read it, who
> believes it is a good starting point for working group work, who
> will contribute to the work) and whether there are any significant
> technical issues. Statements of objection must be backed up by
> proper technical reasons.
>
> So please respond to this poll indicating whether you support the
> adoption of this draft or stating your technical issues.
>
> Please also not that this draft has after a discussion with the
> working group chairs been renamed, it was earlier know as
> draft-nitinb-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-extensions-01.
>
> This poll ends eob July 5.
>
>
> Loa and George
> mpls wg co-chairs
>

-- 
================================================================
                   http://www.van-helvoort.eu/
================================================================
Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls