Re: [mpls] Draft: Response to Updated draft Recommendation G.tpoam [Ref 043.02]

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

Please see inline

On 13/01/2011 16:20, D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo wrote:
>
> Dear Stewart, all,
>
> I do not agree on the proposed Liaison text for the reasons explained 
> inline below.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Alessandro
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Telecom Italia
>
> Alessandro D'Alessandro
>
> Transport & OPB Innovation
>
> Via Reiss Romoli, 274 - 10148 Torino
>
> phone:  [phone]
>
> mobile: [phone]
>
> fax: [phone]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf 
> Of Stewart Bryant
> Sent: lunedì 10 gennaio 2011 11.57
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [mpls] Draft: Response to Updated draft Recommendation 
> G.tpoam [Ref 043.02]
>
> I propose to send the following Liaison Response to the ITU-T on Friday
>
> 14th January and am posting it to the MPLS WG list for review.
>
> =======
>
> Response to Updated draft Recommendation G.tpoam [Ref 043.02]
>
> From: IETF Liaison to ITU-T on MPLS [e-mail]
>
> To: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
>
> CC: Greg Jones, [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
>
> [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
>
> [e-mail], [e-mail]
>
> [e-mail], [e-mail]
>
> [e-mail], [e-mail]
>
> For Action
>
> The MPLS Working Group notes that this document contains text describing
>
> MPLS-TP OAM protocols not designed and standardized using the IETF
>
> Standards process. Specifically it uses material from
>
> draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-06.
>
> [dalessandro] In my understanding ITU-T G.tpoam is based on ITU-T Y.1731.
>
Please read the inbound liaison. It specifically states that the changes 
to G.tpoam based on draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731
>
> We wish to draw your attention to the status section of
>
> draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-06 which states:
>
> "Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
>
> and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
>
> time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material
>
> or to cite them other than as "work in progress".
>
> Please also note that since the draft filename starts with the prefix
>
> string "draft-bhh" this clearly identifies it to the reader as a
>
> document expressing the personal technical views of the authors and
>
> hence hence as a document that that does not have any acknowledged level
>
> of IETF consensus.
>
> [dalessandro] I would take the opportunity this email give me to 
> invite IETF community to review draft-bhh (and the other related 
> contributions)that are fueling a lot of discussions inside IETF.
>
Please see Ben's email on this thread
>
> Since the text of draft Recommendation for G.tpoam is based on an
>
> MPLS-TP OAM protocol not designed within the IETF Standards Process this
>
> is a breach of the SG15 agreement with the IETF as published in Report
>
> of the first meeting of Working Party 3/15 Transport network structures
>
> (2009-2012) (Geneva, 1 -- 12 December 2008) which can be found at
>
> http://www.itu.int/md/T09-SG15-R-0004/en
>
> [dalessandro] In my understanding ITU-T documents are based on 
> contributions and consensus. G.tpoam does not preclude inclusion of 
> material agreed inside IETF therefore I do not see it as a breach of 
> the SG15 agreement with the IETF. For that reason I do not agree 
> sending this Liaison.
>
In the case of MPLS-TP, the agreement is that the protocols will be 
standardized using the IETF Standards Process.

The relevant text in the JWT is:

Consensus on recommendation of Option 1
Jointly agree to work together and bring transport requirements into the 
IETF and extend IETF MPLS forwarding, OAM, survivability, network 
management and control plane protocols to meet those requirements 
through the IETF Standards Process


> Please confirm that the ITU-T intends to continue with the joint work on
>
> MPLS-TP and that the ITU-T will align this recommendation with the IETF
>
> MPLS-TP OAM design before advancing this document through the ITU-T
>
> publication process.
>
> [dalessandro] Is it appropriate for IETF to do that statement? I never 
> heard statements in ITU-T meetings and I never read ITU-T 
> contributions asking to break the joint work with IETF.
>
The output of the Berlin meeting seems to throw considerable doubt on 
the ITU-T intentions

If the ITU-T is fully committed to the JWT, the answer will be a simple 
"yes".


> The MPLS Working Group would also like to draw the attention of ITU-T
>
> SG15 to the IETF copyright rules. Please see
>
> http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/archive/IETF-Trust-License-Policy-20091228.htm 
>
>
> for further details.
>
> Since this draft Recommendation contains text in which the ITU-T SG15
>
> has proposed making changes to IETF protocols without the approval of
>
> the IETF, the MPLS Working Group have referred this liaison to the IAB
>
> for their consideration.
>
> =========
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> mpls mailing list
>
> [e-mail]
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>
> Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente 
> alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione 
> derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente 
> vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete 
> cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di 
> provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie.
>
> /This e-mail and any attachments//is //confidential and may contain 
> privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. 
> Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is 
> unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete 
> this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return 
> e-mail, Thanks./
>
> *rispetta l'ambienteRispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se 
> non è necessario.*
>


-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html