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

[Maarten Vissers <[e-mail]>]

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