Re: [mpls] For Review: Proposed Liaison Response to SG11

[Adrian Farrel <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 
Sent: 10 March 2024 11:45
To: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; 'mpls' <[e-mail]>
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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > On Behalf Of BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 6:10 PM
To: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ; 'mpls' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> > On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 10:37 AM
To: 'mpls' <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >
Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
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 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >;
Tatiana Kurakova <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >;
Scott Mansfield <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> >;
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> ; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>  
Purpose: For Information
In response to: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1869/__;!!BhdT!mWmi68uYSSy4-bpLL11L9uqhsLuDkHbkucLYYk0WXj5PQ_FU-tg_9Ro91YUsgXqwJsR2bvQBWxreFnPg$ <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
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls__;!!BhdT!mWmi68uYSSy4-bpLL11L9uqhsLuDkHbkucLYYk0WXj5PQ_FU-tg_9Ro91YUsgXqwJsR2bvQBWw-z3cuX$ <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.