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

["HUANG Feng F" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,
  
<snipped>
 
> *_I expect that if one presents alternative solutions, it first shows 
> the technical issues it has with the solution the WG is working on and 
> if it has concerns why his concerns cannot be solved out within the 
> scope of the solution the WG is working on. _*
 
Looking at the date of initial publishing...
draft-bhh is the first draft, so all other drafts are alternative...
and as Nurit writes *they* should be showing the technical issues...
 
>The WG is currently developing solutions for the tools…some of them are already in a very good shape…
 
This solution can't satisfy transport requirement, the mpls-tp demo in mpls2010 shows protection switch trigged by draft-cc-cv-rdi is less than 50ms? can Nurit prove it?
by the way, you can track the poll email in ietf mpls wg, when draft-xxx-bfd is polled as workgroup doc, there is no censuses in mpls group!
 
 
> *_If this is a technical concern, please refer to my proposal_*! 
> Review the documents the WG is working on and comment! Otherwise it 
> seems a waste of time and we would better focus on progressing the 
> developments of the solutions the WG is working on.

Yes, I waited for Nurit's tecnincal comments for a long time. 
 
B.R.
Feng

 
________________________________

From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 2010年12月15日 20:45
To: HUANG Feng F; BUSI ITALO; Christopher LILJENSTOLPE; Huub van Helvoort
Cc: [e-mail]; Ad hoc MPLS-TP; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [mpls] [mpls-tp] R: MPLS WG slides from CMCC



Hi,

The solution Y.1731 proposes for the CC function is NOT the same as proposed to packet loss, although they appear in the same document. Right? And the same for the other set of tools....

Hence the discussion has to be taken tool by tools....and it really does not matter if the set of tools appear to be in the same document or in a set of documents that all together provide the entire set of tools....

I have to admit that I find it very strange…since day 1 we called for this technical discussion but no one that proposes an alternative has done so…and from some unclear reasons the main objection is to do it tool by tool….

The WG is currently developing solutions for the tools…some of them are already in a very good shape…

I expect that if one presents alternative solutions, it first shows the technical issues it has with the solution the WG is working on and if it has concerns why his concerns cannot be solved out within the scope of the solution the WG is working on. 

If this is a technical concern, please refer to my proposal! Review the documents the WG is working on and comment! Otherwise it seems a waste of time and we would better focus on progressing the developments of the solutions the WG is working on.

Best regards,

Nurit

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: ext HUANG Feng F [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 2:30 PM
To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); BUSI ITALO; Christopher LILJENSTOLPE; Huub van Helvoort
Cc: [e-mail]; Ad hoc MPLS-TP; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [mpls] [mpls-tp] R: MPLS WG slides from CMCC

 

Hi,

    Why " We should aim for technical discussion and do it tool by tool!", providers need a total solution, do you want providers to update their implement products again and again?

B.R.

Feng

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)

Sent: 2010年12月15日 16:32

To: BUSI ITALO; Christopher LILJENSTOLPE; Huub van Helvoort

Cc: [e-mail]; Ad hoc MPLS-TP; [e-mail]

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

 

Hi,

I think at the current status, we should do it vice versa...

Any one that wants to push for another solution than currently being defined by the WG, should present the technical issues it has with the current proposals when he present alternative ones!

We should aim for technical discussion and do it tool by tool!

Best regadrs,

Nurit