[mpls] R: [mpls-tp] Progressing Resolution of Erratum 2533 (RFC 5960)

I agree that the changes proposed by Adrian are not resolving the ITU-T comment. I also understand NOW that the erratum was the wrong approach to resolve the comment.

Note that in the reply sent by the IETF chair to the ITU-T LS it was explicitly said:

"
If IETF contributors feel that there is an issue to be resolved, there are two processes that are available to make changes to published RFCs.
One method is to submit an Erratum Notice using the IETF web pages (http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php). The other method is to produce a revision or modification to the published RFC by submitting an Internet-Draft and taking it through the IETF consensus process. Both methods are subject to review before approval.
"

I am very concerned by the way this issue has been managed by the IETF.

The Routing ADs attended, as ISOC representatives, the ITU-T meeting where the comment was developed; so they were fully aware of its technical content. A proper instruction from them at the time the Erratum was submitted (i.e., 30 September) would have saved a lot of time and speeded up the resolution of the ITU-T comment.

I was also confused by the fact that one of the two Routing AD during the same ITU-T meeting claimed that the proposed text was just a minor editorial change the editors could have easily fixed despite the document was in the RFC Editor Queue.

I am very concerned to see that people are speaking with different voices in different SDOs: this behaviour is not helping the standardization work to progress in the right direction nor the convergence between ITU-T and IETF.

Italo

________________________________
Da: mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org] Per conto di Malcolm.BETTS@zte.com.cn
Inviato: mercoledì 10 novembre 2010 20.09
A: Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com
Cc: mpls@ietf.org; ahmpls-tp@lists.itu.int; mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org; mpls-tp@ietf.org
Oggetto: Re: [mpls-tp] Progressing Resolution of Erratum 2533 (RFC 5960)

Adrian,

Thank you for the clarification the process. I now understand that the erratum was the wrong  approach to address this comment from the ITU.

Unfortunately I don't think that the change you are proposing will address the comment raised in the liaison from the ITU.
"This change is intended to clarify that providing a multiplexing capability for a section layer is optional."

My understanding is that the only motivation for the erratum was to address this comment, if this is the case then I see little point in progressing the erratum.

Regards,

Malcolm

Adrian Farrel <Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com>
Sent by: mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org

10/11/2010 02:38 AM
Please respond to
Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com

To

ahmpls-tp@lists.itu.int, mpls@ietf.org, mpls-tp@ietf.org

cc

Subject

[mpls-tp] Progressing Resolution of Erratum 2533 (RFC 5960)

All,

Thank you for your input and suggestions on this topic.

To be clear, we are not attempting to reach consensus on what change to make,
but I am listening to your individual opinions.

In deciding what Erratum to post, I will select a form of words that clarifies
the published RFC text, but which does not make a technical change. I intend to
reflect the consensus of the IETF that was demonstrated by the publication of
this document.

The Erratum process is intended to correct typographic or rendition issues that
produce Editorial or Technical issues in the published text. The process is not
intended to make technical changes or fixes. Such issues should be handled by
revising the work through the IETF consensus process. draft-ietf-mpls-tp-uni-nni
is a good example of how that is done.

Now, with regard to this particular Erratum.

It seems to me that there are two separate concerns.

The first concern is about identification of payloads. This is needed for a
range of reasons, and is a firm requirement in the existing text (and, indeed in
the MPLS architecture). However, it is noted that the identification may be
explicit or implicit. The text also notes that the use of explicit
identification of payload is a facilitator for demultiplexing multiplexed
payloads.

The second concern is whether there is a requirement to support payload
multiplexing. I do not believe there is any statement about the support for
multiplexing in RFC 5960. The only mention of the subject is in the filed
Erratum. It would be wrong to introduce any statement of requirement or
non-requirement through an Erratum.

So, I'm not hearing anything that persuades me that the Erratum should be
different from what I wrote. If folk want to establish a specific requirement
that multiplexing is not required, then they can go ahead and write  a draft. I
cannot speak for how the WG will greet such a draft.

Thanks,
Adrian

_______________________________________________
mpls-tp mailing list
mpls-tp@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp