Re: [mpls] [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