Re: [Pals] Soliciting reviews for draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-00.txt

I think that there is agreement that

1) We need Type4

2) We cannot mandate Type1

However where there is discussion over the migration strategy and how it 
is defined.

I wonder if the WG would prefer

a) I add more text on migration path, what we deprecate  etc to this draft

or

b) That I split the problem and just create Type 4 here, and then write 
a draft
on preferences, migration etc, etc.

An uncontroversial RFC just creating Type 4 is probably feasible before 
the next
IETF.

- Stewart (as editor)

On 24/12/2014 18:35, Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) wrote:
> Andy,
>
> I took a very quick scan through this document, and have a number of 
> concerns.
>
> At the heart of the concerns, this document seems to be doing a number 
> of different things that are not reflected in the Title and Abstract. 
> While the title is “VCCV Default CC Types”, this document seems to be 
> doing much more than defining default CC Types, including:
> 1. Defining a new CC Type 4
> 2. Setting a Default for when with and without CW (as per the Title), 
> but also
> 3. Implicitly Obsoleting Type 2 and Type 3 (non-default)
> 4. Requiring new hw capabilities for the Type 4.
>
> I believe those things should be explicitly done.
>
> Some more comments (including editorials) follow, prefaced with “CMP”:
>
> PWE3             T. Nadeau
> Internet-Draft           lucidvision
> Updates: 4447, 5085 (if approved)             L. Martini
>
> CMP: s/PWE3/PALS? >
>
>    This document updates RFC4447 and RFC5085.
>
> CMP: More importantly, what exactly is this document updating on those 
> two? Adding a new CC Type does not mean update RFC 4447 or RFC 5085. I 
> Section listing the exact updates to those specs is necessary. My view 
> is that this doc can update 5085 (Section 7), but not sure how it 
> updates 4447.
>
>    Note to be removed at publication: this document started out as
>    draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-for-gal and got to version -02.  When PWE3 was
>    absorbed into PALS the next version published was draft-ietf-pals-
>    vccv-for-gal-00
>
> CMP: I thought that initially, draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-for-gal-02 was 
> only defining the new CC Type 4, while draft-nadeau-pwe3-vccv2-00 
> would do other updates including Defaults, obsoleting CC Types, etc.
>
>    state.  Operators have indicated in [RFC4377], and [RFC3916] that
>    such a tool is required for PW operation and maintenance.  To this
>    end, the IETF's PWE3 Working Group defined the Virtual Circuit
>    Connectivity Verification Protocol (VCCV) in [RFC5085] . Since then a
>    number of interoperability issues have arisen with the protocol as it
>    is defined.
>
> CMP: I see the fact that PWE3 WG defined that RFC as a distractor, and 
> irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. Also, you should point to 
> [RFC7079] to describe and quantify the interop issues instead of just 
> saying they exist. Lastly, how creating a new CC Type not also create 
> intro issues? That should be answered.
>
> 7.  Manageability Considerations
>
>    By introducing default VCCV CC types, and improving the compatibility
>    with MPLS-TP, the compatibility of implementations is improved and
>    management and configuration of the network becomes simpler.
>
> CMP: This is a bold statement, that does not appear to be immediate. I 
> expect initially to see the manageability worst before it improves. 
> This is adding a new mode before letting time to remove all the other 
> ones.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Carlos.
>
>
>> On Dec 22, 2014, at 9:33 AM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:agmalis@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> PALSers,
>>
>> i know that you would all like a little something to distract you 
>> from the holidays ... :-). Well, maybe not. But anyway, Stewart 
>> recently revised the VCCV for GAL draft (see below), and while short 
>> (just four pages of real content), we would like to have a good 
>> indication that it represents WG consensus, so we need at least some 
>> of you out there to read it and comment, even if that comment is 
>> "I've reviewed it and looks great to me". As I noted, it's a short 
>> draft, so it shouldn't take all that long.
>>
>> You can read the draft at 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-00 .
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Stewart and Andy
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org <mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org>>
>> Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:00 PM
>> Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-00.txt
>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org <mailto:i-d-announce@ietf.org>
>> Cc: pals@ietf.org <mailto:pals@ietf.org>
>>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
>> directories.
>>  This draft is a work item of the Pseudowire And LDP-enabled Services 
>> Working Group of the IETF.
>>
>>         Title           : VCCV Default CC Types
>>         Authors         : Thomas D. Nadeau
>>                           Luca Martini
>>                           Stewart Bryant
>>         Filename        : draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-00.txt
>>         Pages           : 8
>>         Date            : 2014-12-17
>>
>> Abstract:
>>    This document specifies the default Virtual Circuit Connectivity
>>    Verification (VCCV) (RFC5085) control channel type to be used when
>>    the pseudowire control word is present and when it is not present.  A
>>    new VCCV control channel type using the Generic Associated Channel
>>    Label (RFC5586) is specified for use when the control word not
>>    present.
>>
>>    This document updates RFC4447 and RFC5085.
>>
>>    Note to be removed at publication: this document started out as
>>    draft-ietf-pwe3-vccv-for-gal and got to version -02.  When PWE3 was
>>    absorbed into PALS the next version published was draft-ietf-pals-
>>    vccv-for-gal-00
>>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal/
>>
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pals-vccv-for-gal-00
>>
>>
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
>> submission
>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org 
>> <http://tools.ietf.org/>.
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> I-D-Announce mailing list
>> I-D-Announce@ietf.org <mailto:I-D-Announce@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
>> Internet-Draft 
>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announceInternet-Draft> 
>> directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
>> <http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html>
>> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pals mailing list
>> Pals@ietf.org <mailto:Pals@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pals mailing list
> Pals@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals

-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

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