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

[Nitin Bahadur <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hubb,

On 7/5/10 4:55 AM, "Huub van Helvoort" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.

The authors will clarify that in the next revision. As you and others have
pointed out, the text is more centered today around the solution (lsp-ping),
rather than the how the requirement is met.

> It does not indicate how the ACh is used.

Section 3.2 alludes to it. I will update that section to have a pointer to
the first normative reference.

> What is the meaning of "adjacency" in the context of MPLS-TP?

Adjacency came from -01 version of mpls-tp-oam-requirements draft. Currently
there is no adjacency requirement, so we'll get rid of the term of this
draft as well.

> 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.

LSP-Ping is indeed dynamic in the request/response sense. However, the LSP
by itself can be setup statically or using RSVP-TE. If it is setup
statically, then section 2.4 applies. Can you clarify your comment.

Thanks
Nitin

> ==============
> 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
>>