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

Greg,
A very good point! I have completely missed that!

Adrian,
Apologies for bothering you - but
If the document is not just about the requirements, can we add something about the need to review specific technical solutions/protocol extensions in the document in the MPLS WG prior to the document approval?

My 2c,
Sasha

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>

________________________________
From: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2024 9:31:58 PM
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: Alexander Vainshtein <Alexander.Vainshtein@rbbn.com>; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <db3546@att.com>; mpls-ads@ietf.org <mpls-ads@ietf.org>; mpls <mpls@ietf.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [mpls] For Review: Proposed Liaison Response to SG11

Hi, Adrian et al.,
I have a comment regarding the

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.

in the proposed response. Although, technically, this is a correct statement, the environment must be such that each P node is, in effect, turned into a PE, or more accurately, super-PE, system for the proposed extension to be useful. I am not suggesting that we go into these details, but just to point out that inviting that discussion to the MPLS WG would likely be concluded with Don't do that.

Regards,
Greg

On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 9:58 AM Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>> wrote:
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 <Alexander.Vainshtein@rbbn.com<mailto:Alexander.Vainshtein@rbbn.com>>
Sent: 10 March 2024 11:45
To: BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A <db3546@att.com<mailto:db3546@att.com>>; adrian@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Cc: mpls-ads@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-ads@ietf.org>; 'mpls' <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>
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 <mpls-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 6:10 PM
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk<mailto:adrian@olddog.co.uk>; 'mpls' <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>
Cc: mpls-ads@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-ads@ietf.org>
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 <mpls-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 10:37 AM
To: 'mpls' <mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>>
Cc: mpls-ads@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-ads@ietf.org>
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 <denis.andreev@itu.int<mailto:denis.andreev@itu.int>>;

Tatiana Kurakova <tatiana.kurakova@itu.int<mailto:tatiana.kurakova@itu.int>>;

Scott Mansfield <Scott.Mansfield@Ericsson.com<mailto:Scott.Mansfield@Ericsson.com>>;

mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>; mpls-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:mpls-chairs@ietf.org>; itu-t-liaison@iab.org<mailto:itu-t-liaison@iab.org>

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

mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>

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.

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org<mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>