Re: [mpls] https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1435/

[Huub van Helvoort <[e-mail]>]

Hello Sasha,

The amendment is to align G.8131 with the published RFCc. So it is
following work in the IETF.

Have a nice weekend, Huub.

sent from Huawei Nexus
On 6 Feb 2016 2:16 p.m., "Alexander Vainshtein" <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Huub,
>
> Lots of thanks for a prompt response and for a catched typo.
>
>
>
> In any case, does the proposed Amendment imply that IETF has to do
> something about tgese RFCs as wekl to keep everything in sync?
>
>
>
> Regards, and lots of thamks in advance,
>
> Sasha
>
>
>
>
> Thumb typed on my LG,
> Sasha
>
> ------ Original message ------
> *From: *Huub van Helvoort
> *Date: *05/02/2016 13:55
> *To: *Alexander Vainshtein;Loa Andersson;Scott Mansfield;
> *Cc: *[e-mail];[e-mail];
> *Subject:*Re: [mpls] https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1435/
>
> Hello Sasha,
>
> You are probably referring to G.8131.
>
> FYI: G.8131 is based on and in line with the RFCs you mention.
> G.8131 was published after these RFC were published, there were
> liaisons exchanged to align the progress of this work.
>
> Best regards, Huub.
>
>
> > Loa. Scott and all,
> > One of the documents mentioned in the liaison deals with revision  of an
> ITU-T G.8113 that deals with linear protection of MPLS-TP LSPs.
> >
> > This issue has some history in the MPLS WG:
> > 1. IETF has published RFC 6378 as a Proposed Standard
> > 2. Some  serious technical issues have been then found with this
> document, and as a consequence, RFC 7324 has been published (also as P) to
> fix these issues
> > 3.In addition, RFC 7121 has been published to describe an alternative
> solution to RFC 6378  to make linear protection of LPs to macth
> expectations of the Telecom operators; this is also a PS document.
> >
> > And, in addition, ITU-T has published G.8113 that also deals with linear
> protection of MPLS-TP LSPs.
> >
> > Having so  many documents dealing with the same issue looks problematic
> tome in any case. And since ITU-T now plans to approve revisions to its own
> standard pertaining to linear protection of LSPs, it makes sense to ask for
> some clarifications, mainly if a revision process of, say. 7121 should be
> initiated to mact the changes in G.8113.
> >
> > My 2c,
> > Sasha
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: mpls <[e-mail]> on behalf of Loa Andersson <[e-mail]
> >
> > Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 5:32 AM
> > To: Scott Mansfield; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [mpls] https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1435/
> >
> > Scott,
> >
> > So maybe just a short response.
> >
> > "Thanks for your liaison on the final approval of the MPLS-TP
> > Recommendations, this marks a step in the joint MPLS-TP project.
> >
> > IETF have to date published 45 MPLS-TP RFC from 7 working groups and
> > independent document. IETF still have 11 active Internet Drafts.
> >
> > We are looking forward to your support completing the MPLS-TP
> > project."
> >
> > I think you can correct grammar and spelling and send it timely.
> >
> > Working Group,
> >
> > Please comment on this?
> >
> > /Loa
> >
> > On 2016-02-04 21:13, Scott Mansfield wrote:
> >> I'm willing to help, but I don’t see anything here worth commenting on,
> unless there is a burning desire to make comments now.  None of the
> documents liaised have changed dramatically since early 2014.
> >>
> >> -scott.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[e-mail] <[e-mail]>]
> >> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 5:58 AM
> >> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Scott Mansfield
> >> Subject: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1435/
> >>
> >> Working Group,
> >>
> >> We have a liaison from SG15 that we need to decide on how to respond to
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1435/
> >> I've asked Scott to help us coordinate this.
> >> Any comments are welcome.
> >>
> >> /Loa
> >> mpls wg co-chair
> >>
>
>