Re: [PWE3] OAM Msg Mapping Drafts

["Busschbach, Peter B \(Peter\)" <[e-mail]>]

Carlos,

It may be true that the L2TPv3 portion required improvements, but the
normal process would have been to point out on the mailing list. As far
as I know, the L2TP-related text has not changed since 2005, so there
has been ample time to fix the mistakes. Having new people identify
themselves as editors and making modifications to a document based on
the claim that the old text was "broken" is a bizarre way to update a WG
document.

I propose that you send an email to the mailing list to point out what
needs to be changed in the 06-version of the text. The editors can then
take that into consideration for the new version. 

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of Carlos Pignataro
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 1:11 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: pwe3
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] OAM Msg Mapping Drafts
> 
> I'd like to point out that although this focus is on the 
> eth-oam, there were additional updates to this "updated rev 
> -07" version, including:
> 
> 1. Update (rework/rewrite) of the L2TPv3 portions (as Luca mentioned
>     with "L2TP message mapping is broken", those segments 
> needed work). I
>     made those edits (and would very much like to get 
> feedback on them).
> 2. Small catch-up with some of the VCCV-related updates 
> (e.g., there was
>     no reference to VCCV-BFD, and no demarc from RFC5085, 
> same) 3. Address 
> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg09479.html>.
> 4. Others (standby state, et cetera).
> 
> As such, I'd like to request that these edits (the updates to non-eth
> portions) do not get lost in the process, and option a) seems 
> to make these updates go away. As far as whether merging the 
> eth-oam or keeping it in a separate document, I really do not 
> have a preference. As long as the WG work is equally timely, 
> complete and accurate, I have no preference as to which 
> document contains it, and thus b) or c) would be fine for me.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --Carlos.
> 
> On 7/25/2008 10:16 AM, Stewart Bryant said the following:
> > We had hoped to resolve this face to face before the PWE3 
> meeting next 
> > week but that now looks unlikely. We are  concerned that we need to 
> > resolve this without the issue absorbing all of the time in the WG 
> > meeting.
> > 
> > In order to gauge the consensus of the WG we would would 
> like to ask 
> > some questions.
> > 
> > When considering how to approach the message mapping 
> document issue, 
> > we think that the most important considerations are:
> > 
> > 1) That we deliver a high quality document that describes
> >     the design to the implementors and users.
> > 
> > 2) That the Ethernet design is fully reviewed.
> > 
> > 3) That there is consistency between the approaches used
> >     for the various OAM mappings.
> > 
> > 4) That the Ethernet design is delivered in an expedited
> >     manner and the ATM and FR designs are also delivered
> >     in a timely manner.
> > 
> > 
> > We have three approaches:
> > 
> > a) LC and publish draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-06.txt, and
> > 
> >     Accept draft-mohan-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk as
> >     a WG document
> > 
> > b) LC and publish draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-07.txt
> >     (i.e. Luca's rewrite) but without  the Ethernet
> >     section, and
> > 
> >     Accept draft-mohan-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk as a WG
> >     document
> > 
> > c) Use publish draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-07.txt  as
> >     the basis for ongoing work.
> > 
> > Before any document is sent to the IESG for publication we 
> will ensure 
> > contributions are appropriately acknowledged through  editorship, 
> > authorship, & acknowledgments. So please set any such 
> issues aside and 
> > focus on the best document to deliver to our users.
> > 
> > Please also set aside the poor etiquette that has taken place, and  
> > focus on  how best to deliver  the required documentation to the 
> > community. On the basis of considerations 1..4 above, which 
> > documentation approach, a, b or c, do you consider most likely to 
> > achieve the goals of the WG?
> > 
> > 
> > Stewart & Matthew
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > pwe3 mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> > 
> 
> --
> --Carlos Pignataro.
> Escalation RTP - cisco Systems
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3