IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] [OPSAWG] Proposed Liaison Response to SG11

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 10 March 2024 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B768EC14F5FA; Sun, 10 Mar 2024 11:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5Tx3XuRUthtH; Sun, 10 Mar 2024 11:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB0CCC14F5E7; Sun, 10 Mar 2024 11:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F00F3898B; Sun, 10 Mar 2024 14:52:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id mVpLn9cv0v9u; Sun, 10 Mar 2024 14:52:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E4AA38988; Sun, 10 Mar 2024 14:52:48 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1710096768; bh=FHJG9ZIbowlA6VCq7fxlegRZjBKI0pYc+Jfs33lcvm0=; h=From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=i/GyVMcmYSjJA85Z0PTAYN3zShGmjxFa3Otxuu1T9Ov6PwSoyLePJEcwL9Y40YQ2d kVh2IjJNb44XCbi6OjL7p9v/Qq/TvH1W4uJx+U3GoAXFR+5104lvnI2iAwFhg1qmqe EZhpxfqpv+jKvBiSZ58GG/nF8XoBOxEuFNXcmwPY9nUnILjGyJdlAAox4QB1KPyLJE KmTAWtRE7so7gDvbdeaNnUKnda0ym1TxQbhEhDdUidEyCKO+aUbWu81GO0T2YLrM0M 5V89a7W5z43ZGvDmBP8BRi3KJe7IIzhIWN4WmKQubf2bTLiDK2wfOIl0E18RhWi02X CMxlQIg1u7Pzg==
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 866F3AD; Sun, 10 Mar 2024 14:52:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
cc: 'OPSAWG' <opsawg@ietf.org>, mpls@ietf.org, 'mpls-chairs' <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>, opsawg-chairs@ietf.org, ops-ads@ietf.org, rtg-ads@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <044c01da7241$2a570e40$7f052ac0$@olddog.co.uk>
References: <02c501da70ad$60b838f0$2228aad0$@olddog.co.uk> <03c701da716e$7d056de0$771049a0$@olddog.co.uk> <044c01da7241$2a570e40$7f052ac0$@olddog.co.uk>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.8+dev; GNU Emacs 28.2
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2024 14:52:48 -0400
Message-ID: <433.1710096768@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/tTkCSlZUAx_gJAaqagTzT9puyDU>
Subject: Re: [mpls] [OPSAWG] Proposed Liaison Response to SG11
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2024 18:52:58 -0000

Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
    > The MPLS working group is discussing sending a liaison to ITU-T SG11 in
    > response to their liaison (https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1869/)
    > originally targeted at OPSAWG.

I'm not an MPLS person, and I don't do ITU-T, but:

    > If you feel:
    > - OPSAWG should co-sign

Yes.

    > - MPLS should butt out

I think that your reply is appropriate.

    > 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.

I'm leaving this part here for others that didn't read that far.
Maybe list a few RFCs here?

    > 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.

I didn't know what lacunae are.

dictionary.com told me: noun
An empty space or a missing part; a gap.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email