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

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

Hi Tom,

> My concern is with all the other sections as well:-)  I do not believe
that we
> have the resources to do the subject justice, which is similar to a
view that
> Juergen expressed some time ago.

We actually do have sufficient experts involved in the work described in
the document.
The document contributors are well-known names and active WG chairs at
the IETF.
 
> If we stay with the all encompassing approach, then I do think that
FCAPS is
> needed, since it is how other organizations approach the topic, even
though we
> do not.

This exactly is the issue we have and need to address. A document for
IETF guys 
is actually not needed. There are different web sites providing a
complete list 
of MIBs with different sort criteria. What we essentially need is a
document 
for people outside of IETF, giving an overview from their application
pov.
 
> 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 ;) ?

Mehmet