Re: [mpls] draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-sig-requirement-00.txt

On Dec 21, 2004, at 12:08 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:

> Tom,
>
>>> Do the WG and the authors of draft-ietf-mpls-oam-requirements-05.txt
>>> agree to delay that draft while the OAM requirements for P2MP
>>> MPLS-TE are developed?
>>
>> Personally, no, so I suggest that the P2MP Reqs co-authors (and
>> WG folks) please review the OAM requirements draft ASAP to ensure
>> that it is not missing anything p2mp-related. *)
>
> Well, I think this is why I would prefer that the P2MP OAM requirements
> went in a separate draft. That way we do no hold up the base MPLS OAM
> requirements draft and we don't make any premature decisions on P2MP 
> OAM.
>
> But, in another email you commit to doing the work to making sure that
> P2MP OAM requirements are covered, so perhaps you'd like to propose 
> some
> text for discussion.

	I personally have none nor have I received any to-date,
which is why they didn't go into the MPLS OAM draft. *)
In any event, why is it unreasonable to request that these be given
by the editors of the MPLS OAM Requirements draft in the near
future?  I can't speak for Dave, but I personally
am willing to wait a couple of weeks to a month
to add these so that the draft is complete.  Can we agree
that if we don't get any say by January 15, then there
will be none?

>>> It seems to me that you would be happy if the very last sentence was
>>> changed to...
>>>    These requirements are covered in [MPLS-OAM].
>>> No other changes to the text would be needed.
>>
>> Yes.
>
> This seems to contradict your other email as well since there you 
> support
> Loa's recommendation
>
>>> Would be better to state something like "The MPLS and GMPLS
>>> MIB will be / has been enhanced to provide P2MP TE LSP
>>> management."
>
> and you say
>
>> This sounds like a reasonable approach as long as the
>> remaining text in the section is removed (as it doesn't seem
>> to belong, nor does it fit with your recommendation).
>
> Can you point up what your objections to the text are. For reference, 
> here is the text...
>
> 4.18 P2MP MPLS OAM
>
>    Management of P2MP LSPs is as important as the management of P2P
>    LSPs.
>
>    The MPLS and GMPLS MIB modules MUST be enhanced to provide P2MP TE
>    LSP management.
>
>    In order to facilitate correct management, P2MP TE LSPs MUST have
>    unique identifiers.

	I don't see why the second or third sentences need to be a MUST,
especially since they have no corresponding justification.

>    OAM facilities will have special demands in P2MP environments
>    especially within the context of tracing the paths and connectivity
>    of P2MP TE LSPs. The precise requirements and mechanisms for OAM are
>    out of the scope of this document. It is expected that a separate
>    document will cover these requirements.

	This sentence seems to indicate that precise OAM requirements
are out of the scope of this document -- so why then do the preceding
two sentences provide requirements for OAM for p2mp TE LSPs?! Based
on this, the preceding two sentences should be removed from this
document and put into a place where there are in the scope of the
document (i.e.: MPLS OAM Requirements). :P

	--tom

> Cheers,
> Adrian
>

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls