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

Huub,

Please see inline.

Best regards,

Nurit

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

From: mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of ext Huub van Helvoort

Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 2:56 PM

To: Loa Andersson

Cc: mpls@ietf.org; MPLS-TP ad hoc team; mpls-tp@ietf.org

Subject: Re: [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.

<Nurit> please be more specific. For me it looks that you just missed
the statement in the document saying "In such scenarios, LSP-Ping SHOULD
be run without IP addressing, using the ACH channel type specified in
(I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures]. Maybe you should look at
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedur
es/ \<Nurit>

It does not indicate where the transport OAM requirements

are met.

<Nurit> the assumption it is unless you prove otherwise \<Nurit>

It does not indicate how the ACh is used.

<Nurit> see above. You probably missed in your review the reference to
ietf-mpls-tp-lsp-ping-bfd-procedures \<Nurit>

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.

<Nurit> your comment is not clear \<Nurit>

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-tp mailing list

mpls-tp@ietf.org

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp