Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of PSC related drafts

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Huub van Helvoort" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 9:05 PM
> Hallo Markus,
>
> You wrote:
>
> > I did not attend the Berlin IETF and the minutes don't
>  > seem to be out yet, so I don't know to what extent this
>  > was discussed there.
>
> The sesion was recorded:
> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/87/remote-participation.html#audio
> (Room Potsdam 3).
>
> > But it seems most (all?) reviewers of the resulting drafts
>  > did not really like the "diff" approach.
>
> Maybe most (all) reviewers did not attend the MPLS session
> on Friday. And thus were not aware of the proposed roadmap
> for progressing these drafts.
> In the slideset slide 20 captures the overall idea:
> - each of the drafts captures/describes an optional change
>    to RFC6378.
> - new draft-xxx-mpls-tp-ITU-mode provides the mode in which
>    all the options are supported at the same time.
>    All the changes to the protocol state machine are captured
>    in this draft.
> - It was agreed that any other sub-set of these options would
>    require its own particular mode draft and state machine.

Huub

It sounds as if it would be clearer if we had a sight of draft-xxx

Certainly up to now, my sympathies have been with the reviewers who have
found the piecemeal approach a source of possible ambiguity.

Tom Petch

>
> Currently there will be two modes:
> = none option supported: existing RFC6378
> = all options supported: draft ITU mode
>
> In this way implementations (currently) have to support
> two modes.
>
> > That sends a pretty clear message that maybe this wasn't
>  > such a great idea after all.
>
> Maybe they did not understand the way i which all the
> options should be supported.
>
> > Even after looking at the slides, I'm not clear what the
>  > motivation was to choose the "diff" format.
>
> To describe why each of the separate options is required.
> This was proposed in the liaison sent from IETF to ITU.
>
>  > Was having a set of update drafts somehow meant to ease
>  > coordination with the ITU?
>
> Yes. This was requested in the liaison from IETF to ITU
> and the concatenation of the options is in draft ITU mode.
>
> > Anyway, the main audience for a standards track RFC are
>  > the implementers and users of the technology. So an RFC
>  > should be written to be easily understood and digested
>  > by its audience. And in my opinion the format chosen for
>  > this set of PSC drafts is not ideal in that regard.
>
> What is the format you would like to see?
>
> Regards, Huub.
>
>
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of
> >> Huub van Helvoort
> >> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 4:12 AM
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: [mpls] MPLS-RT review of PSC related drafts
> >>
> >> All reviewers of the drafts,
> >>
> >> draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-priority
> >> draft-rhd-mpls-tp-psc-sd
> >> draft-dj-mpls-tp-exer-psc
> >> raft-cdh-mpls-tp-psc-non-revertive
> >> draft-osborne-mpls-psc-updates
> >>
> >> and anybody else who wants to contribute:
> >>
> >> I have noticed your concern regarding the way each of these drafts
should be
> >> used to address RFC6378.
> >>
> >> I would like to point you this presentation in the IETF87 meeting
which
> >> contains a proposed forward path:
> >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/87/slides/slides-87-mpls-15.ppt
> >>
> >> In this thread the discussion for supporting the options mentioned
in the
> >> slides has already started:
> >> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg10400.html
> >>
> >> Best regards, Huub.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >
>
>
> --
> *****************************************************************
>                请记住，你是独一无二的，就像其他每一个人一样
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>