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

[Thomas Walsh <[e-mail]>]

Martin, 

You are correct on the procedure regarding the revision of the ITU-T
drafts.  It was worked out through extensive discussion in Q12/15 and I
believe all the other relevant questions adopted the same procedure by
pointing to section 3.6.5.  

I don't see any reason to change that as the revisions depend on the
internet drafts being stable.  

Tom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maarten Vissers [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 12:42 AM
> 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
> 
> 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