Re: [OPSAWG] Fwd: WGLC on draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-01

["Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tom,

after some discussion we decided to not include MPLS-TP OAM into this
document.
There is a note in the draft stating that the document does not cover
OAM 
technologies on the data-path, e.g. OAM of tunnels, MPLS-TP OAM,
Pseudowire, etc.  
and points to two active WG drafts (draft.ietf-opsawg-oam-overview and 
draft.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-framework), which cover it appropriately.

I think it is sufficient if we point to this work and by this avoid
carrying 
the ongoing difficult debate to our draft and its LC.

So, I would suggest to let the grenades where they are ([e-mail])
right now ;)

Cheers, 
Mehmet 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext t.petch [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 12:10 PM
> To: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
> Cc: [e-mail]; Benoit Claise
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Fwd: WGLC on
draft-ietf-opsawg-management-stds-01
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[e-mail]>
> To: "ext t.petch" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>; "Benoit Claise" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 5:43 PM
> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> > And by including the MPLS/ITU-T definition of OAM, but excluding any
> of the
> > protocols which would be understood by those to come under that
name,
> given the
> > current fiery debate about which way OAM for MPLS-TP should go, on
the
> IETF and
> > MPLS lists, seems like tossing a hand grenade into a petrol tanker.
> 
> I have a different opinion on this. RFC 5586 uses this abbreviation
the
> same way.
> Also draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def-10 states in section 3 that
IETF
> recommended
> the expansion of the OAM acronym as we did.
> We actually did not discuss anything related to MPLS-TP OAM and the
> debate with ITU-T.
> Can you please elaborate what exactly should be changed or you think
> looks like a
> hand grenade ;) ?
> 
> <tp>
> 
> There is currently a lively debate on the main ietf list over
> draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt
> which reviews the current position whereby the IETF have
> recommended one approach to OAM for MPLS-TP while the
> ITU-T are ratifying an incompatible one.
> 
> Proponents of the ITU-T approach, who have been involved in
> the discussions all along, question the IETF processes by which
> the IETF arrived at its conclusions, and have been doing so
> for some years, implying, to me, that they do not think that
> their views got proper consideration.
> 
> Were this to go into IETF LC now, with its claim to cover
> 'existing and ongoing development of IETF standards-track
>  network management protocols and data models'
> without any mention of the MPLS-TP work with its
> contributions by ITU-T participants over the years,
> would seem to me likely to aggravate
> the situation; as a hand grenade would in a petrol
> tanker:-)
> 
> Tom Petch
> <tp>
> 
> Mehmet