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

[Stewart Bryant <[e-mail]>]

Yuanlong

I think the critical point in the thread was the express need for 
mult-vendor deployments, something that we are all used to in classical 
networks.

It would be useful to know how often multi-vendor PON is in practice 
deployed.

Stewart

On 11/03/2015 02:17, Jiangyuanlong wrote:
>
> Hi Stewart,
>
> The motive and situation is similar to ICCP, maybe the following 
> mailing list can provide some reasons from SP’s viewpoint when that 
> I-D was polled:
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg10339.html
>
> Actually, trunk protection (or Type B protection) for PON has been 
> deployed by service providers in quite a few countries. There are also 
> quite a few service providers interested in providing ICCP like 
> synchronization for PON, this can be confirmed by our coauthors on the 
> SP side.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Yuanlong
>
> *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/ 
> <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
>


-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html