Re: [Pals] What should we do with draft-jiang-pwe3-mc-pon

[Mingui Zhang <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stewart,

If there are practical scenarios for multivendor-PON protection, it would be beneficial to progress it as a new application of ICCP. 
Since the code-points to be assigned are in the ranges of Expert Review or FCFS in the ICC RG parameter registry, I think it indicates the PALS WG - informational stream is appropriate.

Thanks,
Mingui

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Pals [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
>Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 10:30 PM
>To: [e-mail]
>Cc: [e-mail]
>Subject: [Pals] What should we do with draft-jiang-pwe3-mc-pon
>
>
>The authors of http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jiang-pwe3-mc-pon/
>have asked us to start a poll for WG adoption. However before we do this
>I think that we as a WG need discuss the right way forward for this draft.
>
>In looking at the history of the draft I discover that there has been almost
>no technical discussion on the list.
>
>If I look back at the minutes I find:
>
>@ IETF 90
>
>YJS: how much is deployed with the 2:n splitters?
>Ed: Bright House would probably do it. The splitter would be in house as
>it solves other issues.  PON is growing, but not a great deal deployed
>in NA cable.
>Yuanlong: used for small cell backhaul. Can protect a bunch of small
>cells.
>YJS: so far interest in, but not deployed.  2:N splitter needs to resynch.
>Why do we need if phy not there.
>Andy: please provide comments to the list.
>Matthew: readers? 4, only one commenter on the list
>
>and @ IETF 91
>
>Edwin presented the slides
>No comments.
>The call for WG adoption will be carried to the email list.
>The Chairs noted interest in the meetings and on the list.
>
>In the last remark we may have been mistaken given that  all I
>can find are eight emails up to this point excluding automatic notifications
>and emails from the authors asking the chairs to take an action.
>
>In looking at the draft, the only IANA actions are in the ICC RG
>parameter registry which has Expert Review or FCFS codepoint
>ranges, thus there is no need for a standards track RFC or indeed
>any RFC from this point of view.
>
>In looking at the subject matter itself, I wonder whether this
>is a technology where it is expected there will be multi-vendor
>deployment within a PON domain requiring multi-vendor
>interworking of this feature.
>
>The IESG have recently been pushing back on the publication of
>drafts that have limited support, and thus we need to be in
>a position to justify moving forward with this draft on whatever
>stream we decide is best.
>
>Given the above, I would like to understand the views of the
>WG on which stream is most appropriate for this work:
>
>PALS WG - Standards Track
>
>PALS WG - Informational
>
>AD sponsored
>
>Independent Stream
>
>What are the views of the PALS WG on how we should move forward
>and why?
>
>- Stewart