Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of PSC related drafts

Hallo Markus,

You wrote:

> I did not attend the Berlin IETF and the minutes don't
 > seem to be out yet, so I don't know to what extent this
 > was discussed there.

The sesion was recorded:
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/87/remote-participation.html#audio
(Room Potsdam 3).

> But it seems most (all?) reviewers of the resulting drafts
 > did not really like the "diff" approach.

Maybe most (all) reviewers did not attend the MPLS session
on Friday. And thus were not aware of the proposed roadmap
for progressing these drafts.
In the slideset slide 20 captures the overall idea:
- each of the drafts captures/describes an optional change
   to RFC6378.
- new draft-xxx-mpls-tp-ITU-mode provides the mode in which
   all the options are supported at the same time.
   All the changes to the protocol state machine are captured
   in this draft.
- It was agreed that any other sub-set of these options would
   require its own particular mode draft and state machine.

Currently there will be two modes:
= none option supported: existing RFC6378
= all options supported: draft ITU mode

In this way implementations (currently) have to support
two modes.

> That sends a pretty clear message that maybe this wasn't
 > such a great idea after all.

Maybe they did not understand the way i which all the
options should be supported.

> Even after looking at the slides, I'm not clear what the
 > motivation was to choose the "diff" format.

To describe why each of the separate options is required.
This was proposed in the liaison sent from IETF to ITU.

 > Was having a set of update drafts somehow meant to ease
 > coordination with the ITU?

Yes. This was requested in the liaison from IETF to ITU
and the concatenation of the options is in draft ITU mode.

> Anyway, the main audience for a standards track RFC are
 > the implementers and users of the technology. So an RFC
 > should be written to be easily understood and digested
 > by its audience. And in my opinion the format chosen for
 > this set of PSC drafts is not ideal in that regard.

What is the format you would like to see?

Regards, Huub.

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Huub van Helvoort
>> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 4:12 AM
>> Cc: mpls@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@tools.ietf.org
>> Subject: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of PSC related drafts
>>
>> All reviewers of the drafts,
>>
>> draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-priority
>> draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-sd
>> draft-dj-mpls-tp-exer-psc
>> raft-cdh-mpls-tp-psc-non-revertive
>> draft-osborne-mpls-psc-updates
>>
>> and anybody else who wants to contribute:
>>
>> I have noticed your concern regarding the way each of these drafts should be
>> used to address RFC6378.
>>
>> I would like to point you this presentation in the IETF87 meeting which
>> contains a proposed forward path:
>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/slides/slides-87-mpls-15.ppt
>>
>> In this thread the discussion for supporting the options mentioned in the
>> slides has already started:
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg10400.html
>>
>> Best regards, Huub.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>

-- 
*****************************************************************
               请记住，你是独一无二的，就像其他每一个人一样