Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design-06.txt>

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Sat, 23 March 2013 19:16 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 7B8E821F8D2F; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 12:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ywyXAQTI4muG; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 12:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [208.254.26.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE18821F8D5D; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 12:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [208.254.26.81]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68DF89A40D2; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 15:16:32 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([208.254.26.82]) by localhost (ronin.smetech.net [208.254.26.81]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id idbZry9e46ET; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 15:16:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.100] (pool-108-28-60-169.washdc.fios.verizon.net [108.28.60.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 347BD9A40CD; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 15:16:31 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130128200109.10916.38496.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 15:16:29 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A7D6179B-4760-4B3B-8547-769DADAA4243@vigilsec.com>
References: <20130128200109.10916.38496.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Cc: mpls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design-06.txt>
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:16:34 -0000

I wonder if the direction of Section 1.2 can be revised to make it more of an engineering document.

It currently says:

   In recent years, the urgency for moving from traditional transport
   technologies, such as SONET/SDH, TDM, and ATM, to new packet
   technologies has been rising. This is largely due to the fast growing
   demand for bandwidth, which has been fueled by the following factors:
   ...

Please consider an approach that describes the the reasons behind the transition from the network operator and network user perspectives:

   Traditional transport technologies include SONET/SDH, TDM, and ATM.
   There is a transition away from these transport technologies to new
   packet technologies. In addition to the ever increasing demand for
   bandwidth, the packet technologies offer these advantages:
   ...

The fact that IP networks are being used for new applications and that the legacy devices are getting old does not motivate the transition to packet technologies.  The advantages that packet technologies offer for these new applications is the thing that needs to be highlighted here, even if it is just a list of bullets.

It seems like the only sentence that addresses this point in Section 1.2 is: "It streamlines the operation, reduces the overall complexity, and improves end-to-end convergence."

Thanks,
  Russ

On Jan 28, 2013, at 3:01 PM, The IESG wrote:

> The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label Switching WG
> (mpls) to consider the following document:
> - 'MPLS-TP Applicability; Use Cases and Design'
>  <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design-06.txt> as Informational RFC
> 
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-02-11. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> Abstract
> 
>   This document provides applicability, use case studies and network
>   design considerations for the Multiprotocol Label Switching Transport
>   Profile (MPLS-TP). The use cases include Metro Ethernet access and
>   aggregation transport, Mobile backhaul, and packet optical transport.
> 
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design/
> 
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-use-cases-and-design/ballot/
> 
> 
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.