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

["Shahram Davari" <[e-mail]>]

Ross,

What I meant was that at Internet peering points (E-NNI) MPLS or T-MPLS are
not used. Off course a single ISP can use MPLS or T-MPLS in their own
network, but they are in full control of their own network and could make
sure incompatible protocols are not used or are used in a controlled manner.

Shahram

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of Ross Callon
Sent: February-06-09 10:04 PM
To: [e-mail]; Adrian Farrel; 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

What do you mean that "MPLS is not used in the public Internet"?  MPLS
is very broadly used for support of multiple types of services,
including Internet IP service.  Many very large ISPs run their normal IP
datagram Internet services over MPLS in the core of their network.  If
MPLS were to break down (or more accurately be taken down due to
incompatibilities in standards), then you would not receive this email. 

It is **extremely** difficult to accurately predict what will happen if
different standards with known incompatibilities are deployed in the
same network.  What happens may depend upon specific deployment and
configuration details.  But deployment of standards with many known
incompatibilities has a very real possibility of causing entire networks
to fail.  It would not take that many tier 1 networks failing to stop
you and me from accessing popular Web sites, stop you and me from
exchanging email, and be the lead news story of major newspapers and
television news. 

Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Shahram Davari
Sent: 06 February 2009 20:39
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

Hi Adrian and Tom,

I am personally in favour of deprecating T-MPLS, because I think the
industry needs one set of standard and having two will lead to
confusion.
But  I don't think T-MPLS is dangerous for the public "Internet" (sine
MPLS
or T-MPLS are not used in the public Internet) , and I also don't think
not
following IETF change procedures is a convincing argument (because one
might
come up with a valid protocol without following the IETF change
process).

Best regards,
Shahram

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf
Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: February-06-09 3:59 PM
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

_______________________________________________
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