Re: [mpls] For Review: Proposed Liaison Response to SG11
Loa Andersson <loa.pi.nu@gmail.com> Mon, 11 March 2024 03:30 UTC
Return-Path: <loa.pi.nu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6C3AC14F68B; Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:30:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, MPART_ALT_DIFF=0.79, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2EFph6roMuIv; Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x430.google.com (mail-pf1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::430]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A51FAC14F68A; Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x430.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-6e46dcd8feaso2107809b3a.2; Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1710127821; x=1710732621; darn=ietf.org; h=to:references:message-id:cc:date:in-reply-to:from:subject :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=CHHjb45Ji3Uxz1sIzBKZ0uHVwyjydE155bD+SlvR8d8=; b=IuzU3e40tCuYuii7zLuehSx3TlhDDdv7uAA1HseX9oSNcz1fUKgdLKr168JbLp3uK3 SgZHA14sy6Qrnl4Xk8i2YxKaeEQgJWkNmk6yFh5QAMyB8P/J78UyerKona1MxGfrX67T f/YO27bxFDaWKUs6YAODPPs7uplkDEQr4c/Vj/gZrqDDaRQUvo4xhYAKEnk2on5MBhFX KPUp4Y95f46cLuGuk+IrkfGBUZzOveUiI23HxrDpSTWZeUEWClfgo4+9maYqGiqh+YmD Kmofgp3apPHnmOhnQJxjWgFNgcuLB7RwPvsYkM+B2LTsTjhqBJAF/4xrPpqu78dHfTbj ScDQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1710127821; x=1710732621; h=to:references:message-id:cc:date:in-reply-to:from:subject :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=CHHjb45Ji3Uxz1sIzBKZ0uHVwyjydE155bD+SlvR8d8=; b=DcIKXOBEp5gMZ2J2O4uQL0+sfdqPECxacwvwP5JXbvukK63oWUOlt+CXB/MPNt1NW5 AZmlNuN77xs8XoFcpp+9mgIg/UON87YEdIN/D07RgbtzZ4rYX+jdlgosIAe93R6ufDLS ZGDSHXc8msQSyaNpFcM+j+QcZ2m1KcmuPjGfvZ+YgTyLPFtcQZxP5VAd+xP9Vky0sIqO 9iZcfVxRTGyK0awoQefjW5xMenZVqOk9KG2qExcwKRG45iDeSxL0FPADvza3PUre+Lvs SBGzhSOhwReAwDzITtOZOk2mnHo5VSNKOoM9z4KrhFa754wzLeOSzZQVjY8fpxZK3cUB iV/g==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUWMsYVTETqStt4JSHNus8+N+KOYTEHdQ/46insRXcr4b8TOzt51z0ZpMBsqWWayeH87R7QCguifv9V8kHyJn7MJWumRUbHbiXjrvbrPMMNUg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwF8O6Pin62KH7aJ0wJRLKcczzm84L/dm6u/lWiV9NhFQwMAoqt k9PP4Pr2ezpb9tKYgVnzMqgGV+e7CCb69Rc7nqa+gAFV2mUgABfH
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEwhF8Us5usV/YCFqW6TZgLiQLTS3oKswb+pEvoVTQr4rFz6aS2VJ7rlXo73ypgFcnf5TSVqQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a21:1707:b0:1a3:13c9:f9e1 with SMTP id nv7-20020a056a21170700b001a313c9f9e1mr1526607pzb.26.1710127820921; Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([124.106.198.177]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a17-20020a170902ecd100b001db398d13ecsm3432546plh.258.2024.03.10.20.30.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:30:20 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-192A2B8F-3BBA-409A-9B18-DFD2A9CD3298"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
From: Loa Andersson <loa.pi.nu@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <048d01da730c$30b87e10$92297a30$@olddog.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 11:30:09 +0800
Cc: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@rbbn.com>, "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@att.com>, mpls-ads@ietf.org, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <565C454D-E062-4743-840C-1F3795B7D51A@gmail.com>
References: <048d01da730c$30b87e10$92297a30$@olddog.co.uk>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (21D61)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/60ZPDGKWuUDFDUslTts2-soP6Bs>
Subject: Re: [mpls] For Review: Proposed Liaison Response to SG11
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 03:30:25 -0000
On 11 Mar 2024, at 00:58, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
_______________________________________________Hi Sasha,
Thank you for your consideration. I share some of your experiences with T-MPLS and am consequently also concerned that any protocol work should be carried out in the IETF.
But I am not sure that one SDO should tell another SDO that publication of their requirements document is unjustified. To some extent, I read Q.3962 as indicating the deployment model that some operators want to follow, and you can’t argue with that.
If the requirements can be met with existing tools, then I am sure that an “applicability statement” could be written in the IETF, and I am sure that the WG would be happy to help review the work. Obviously, no one should be under the illusion that they can commission a draft and have it written for them :-)
If it turns out that the requirements cannot be met with existing tools, and that protocol extensions are needed, then (of course) the IETF is the place to do that, and the WG would clearly want to review the proposals before taking them through the usual IETF process.
So perhaps we can strengthen this with…
OLD
Our current understanding of your requirements suggests that all or most of
your requirements can be addressed using existing IP/MPLS OAM tools.
NEW
Our current understanding of your requirements suggests that all or most of
your requirements can be addressed using existing IP/MPLS OAM tools, and
that no further protocol work is necessary.
END
We also have s/lacunae/gaps/ from Loa.
Further, if we *really* want to make the point clear we should change…
OLD
Obviously,
should any gaps be discovered during this process, the working group
would also be pleased to engage in additional protocol work to resolve any
issues.
NEW
Obviously,
should any gaps be discovered during this process, the working group
would also be pleased to engage in additional protocol work to resolve any
issues using the procedures described in RFC 4775 and RFC 4929.
END
Cheers,
Adrian
From: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@rbbn.com>
Sent: 10 March 2024 11:45
To: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <db3546@att.com>; adrian@olddog.co.uk
Cc: mpls-ads@ietf.org; 'mpls' <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [mpls] For Review: Proposed Liaison Response to SG11
Importance: High
Adrian, Deborah and all,
I may be somewhat biased about this issue based on experience with MPLS-TP, but maybe a slightly stronger language could be used in our response?
Specifically, something like (proposed added text is highlighted):
“Our current understanding of your requirements suggests that all or most of your requirements can be addressed using existing IP/MPLS OAM tools, so that it is not clear to the WG whether publication of Q.3962 in its present form is justified”.
IMHO and FWIW this sits well with the proposal to “all experts to bring these requirements to the IETF's MPLS working group with a view to working collaboratively on an Informational RFC that describes how to deliver the function you want to see”,
My 2c,
Sasha
From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 6:10 PM
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk; 'mpls' <mpls@ietf.org>
Cc: mpls-ads@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [mpls] For Review: Proposed Liaison Response to SG11
+1
+1 on “soon” – SG11 will meet early May with contributions due Ap 18 – so hopefully with early receipt of this liaison, will help contributors on progressing their on-going work items.
Deborah
From: mpls <mpls-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 10:37 AM
To: 'mpls' <mpls@ietf.org>
Cc: mpls-ads@ietf.org
Subject: [mpls] For Review: Proposed Liaison Response to SG11
Hi WG, You may have seen some back and forth on the list with respect to a liaison statement sent "For Information" to the OPSAWG by ITU-T Study Group 11. Watching the mailing list, your chairs thought it would be a good idea to send a response
Hi WG,
You may have seen some back and forth on the list with respect to a liaison
statement sent "For Information" to the OPSAWG by ITU-T Study Group 11.
Watching the mailing list, your chairs thought it would be a good idea to
send a response even though one is not requested or required, and even
though we were not the original recipients of the incoming liaison.
Our draft is below. We would welcome any thoughts or edits.
The intention is to send this "soon" so it would help if you could respond
in a timely way.
Thanks,
Adrian for the MPLS Chairs
===
To: ITU-T-SG-11
Cc: Denis Andreev <denis.andreev@itu.int>;
Tatiana Kurakova <tatiana.kurakova@itu.int>;
Scott Mansfield <Scott.Mansfield@Ericsson.com>;
mpls@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org; itu-t-liaison@iab.org
Purpose: For Information
In response to: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1869/__;!!BhdT!mWmi68uYSSy4-bpLL11L9uqhsLuDkHbkucLYYk0WXj5PQ_FU-tg_9Ro91YUsgXqwJsR2bvQBWxreFnPg$" rel="nofollow">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1869/__;!!BhdT!mWmi68uYSSy4-bpLL11L9uqhsLuDkHbkucLYYk0WXj5PQ_FU-tg_9Ro91YUsgXqwJsR2bvQBWxreFnPg$
Subject: Response to your Liaison Statement - LS on the consent of draft
Recommendation ITU-T Q.3962 (ex. Q.joint_tr) "Requirements and Reference
Model for optimized traceroute of joint Internet Protocol/Multi-Protocol
Label Switching"
Body:
Thank you for your Liaison Statement - LS on the consent of draft
Recommendation ITU-T Q.3962 (ex. Q.joint_tr) "Requirements and Reference
Model for optimized traceroute of joint Internet Protocol/Multi-Protocol
Label Switching" dated 2023-10-24. This has been passed on to the MPLS
working group for consideration.
The MPLS working group would like to thank you for sharing your requirements
as expressed in Q.3962.
Our current understanding of your requirements suggests that all or most of
your requirements can be addressed using existing IP/MPLS OAM tools.
We would welcome all experts to bring these requirements to the IETF's MPLS
working group with a view to working collaboratively on an Informational RFC
that describes how to deliver the function you want to see. Obviously,
should any lacunae be discovered during this process, the working group
would also be pleased to engage in additional protocol work to resolve any
issues.
Kind regards,
Adrian Farrel MPLS Working Group Co-Chair
On behalf of the MPLS Working Group and Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls__;!!BhdT!mWmi68uYSSy4-bpLL11L9uqhsLuDkHbkucLYYk0WXj5PQ_FU-tg_9Ro91YUsgXqwJsR2bvQBWw-z3cuX$" rel="nofollow">https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls__;!!BhdT!mWmi68uYSSy4-bpLL11L9uqhsLuDkHbkucLYYk0WXj5PQ_FU-tg_9Ro91YUsgXqwJsR2bvQBWw-z3cuX$
Disclaimer
This e-mail together with any attachments may contain information of Ribbon Communications Inc. and its Affiliates that is confidential and/or proprietary for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete all copies, including any attachments.
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
- [mpls] For Review: Proposed Liaison Response to S… Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] For Review: Proposed Liaison Response … BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
- Re: [mpls] For Review: Proposed Liaison Response … loa
- Re: [mpls] For Review: Proposed Liaison Response … Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls] For Review: Proposed Liaison Response … Adrian Farrel
- Re: [mpls] [EXTERNAL] Re: For Review: Proposed Li… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls] For Review: Proposed Liaison Response … Greg Mirsky
- Re: [mpls] [EXTERNAL] RE: For Review: Proposed Li… Alexander Vainshtein
- Re: [mpls] For Review: Proposed Liaison Response … Loa Andersson
- Re: [mpls] [OPSAWG] Proposed Liaison Response to … Michael Richardson
- Re: [mpls] For Review: Proposed Liaison Response … Dongjie (Jimmy)
- [mpls] Updated: Proposed Liaison Response to SG11 Adrian Farrel