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

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

----- 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