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

Tom,

Maybe I have flu and I'm not thinking straight.

> > 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?

That's daft.

The fact that no-one supplies any OAM requirements for P2MP before January
15 doesn't mean there aren't any. It means that no-one has supplied them.

If the P2MP Sig Req draft is to refer to the MPLS OAM draft (as you
desire) then it must clearly be done only because the MPLS OAM draft
contains an adequate statement of the requirements. The choice is:
a. Do everything necessary to ensure that the MPLS OAM draft includes the
    P2MP OAM requirements
b. Put the P2MP OAM requirements in a separate draft.

> > 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.

So, if we supply a justification we're in the clear?
The justification for the former is simple - the routing area requires
that MIB modules are prepared for all signaling protocols and extensions.
The second point is also simple; for how can you manage something if you
cannot identify it uniquely?

Nevertheless, these paragraphs could happily be subsumed into another
document describing the requirements for P2MP OAM.

> >    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

So put them in the MPLS OAM Requirements and then Seisho can remove them
from here.

A

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