Re: [PWE3] PWE3 WG adoption of draft-zhang-mpls-tp-pw-oam-config-06

Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> Fri, 09 September 2011 13:29 UTC

Return-Path: <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
X-Original-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F5321F87D6 for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 06:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.155
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.155 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.551, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hkNff9IRb2hl for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 06:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [72.71.250.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A82C21F8680 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 06:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.100.68.174] (unknown [141.202.11.155]) by lucidvision.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D60751DFB6F6; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 09:31:09 -0400 (EDT)
References: <CAA=duU0VkZ1AyHyZ2GX5vbrP2cjy_VPxugawyeoptrQakF59QQ@mail.gmail.com> <3E1E08EE-45F0-4539-9FFD-99F5FDDBCB76@lucidvision.com> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A168812BD5@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net> <3FA8E967-231D-404A-A3C1-D94235CE355D@lucidvision.com> <43ECE384-74C8-4DB0-A413-8752178A17D0@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <43ECE384-74C8-4DB0-A413-8752178A17D0@juniper.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8L1)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <9A8500A9-2530-4222-A013-9A71E052ADB9@lucidvision.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8L1)
From: Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 09:31:55 -0400
To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
Cc: "pwe3@ietf.org" <pwe3@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 WG adoption of draft-zhang-mpls-tp-pw-oam-config-06
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3>
List-Post: <mailto:pwe3@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 13:29:17 -0000

On Sep 9, 2011, at 8:33 AM, John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> wrote:

> Tom,
> 
> I think we are agreeing to disagree.

Yes.


>  I think this and the other IDs  
> are a positive step forward.

Coming from a management background and working at a big operator, I can safely say this is a really bad idea - whether or not it's in a requirement s draft or not.  What ultimately will happen is this functionality will just be disabled and not used anyways.

Tom


> 
> John
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Sep 9, 2011, at 8:07 PM, "Thomas Nadeau" <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>  
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Sep 8, 2011, at 9:04 PM, John E Drake wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I support the draft.  It and its RSVP-TE and LSP Ping equivalents  
>>> are designed to facilitate one-sided NMS provisioning.  This is  
>>> entirely consistent with GMPLS and MPLS which both strive to reduce  
>>> coordinated configuration.
>> 
>>   While doing what you say, the same problems that I pointed out on  
>> this thread exist in those approaches as well. I have raised the  
>> same issues in CCAMP and MPLS. Two wrongs don't make a right. *)
>> 
>>   --Tom
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> John
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On  
>>>> Behalf Of
>>>> Thomas Nadeau
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 9:17 AM
>>>> To: Andrew G. Malis
>>>> Cc: pwe3@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [PWE3] PWE3 WG adoption of draft-zhang-mpls-tp-pw-oam-
>>>> config-06
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>   As I mentioned during the meeting, I think this it is a bad idea
>>>> to allow configuration via the OAM control channel, so I do not want
>>>> this adopted as a WG draft.
>>>> 
>>>>   --Tom
>>>> 
>>>> On Sep 6, 2011, at 10:58 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> This email begins a two-week poll on the PWE3 working group  
>>>>> adoption
>>>>> of draft-zhang-mpls-tp-pw-oam-config-06, to end on Sept. 20.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You can read the draft at
>>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-mpls-tp-pw-oam-config-06 .
>>>>> 
>>>>> The MPLS working group was bcc:ed for their information.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please respond with any comments to pwe3@ietf.org ONLY.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Andy
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> pwe3 mailing list
>>>>> pwe3@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> pwe3 mailing list
>>>> pwe3@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
>>> 
>> 
>