[PWE3] Fwd: draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements will be returned to the WG

Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Mon, 27 February 2012 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.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 4AD0D21F879A for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 07:41:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.428
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.428 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 SfePUbED142t for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 07:41:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C38D521F879B for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 07:41:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=stbryant@cisco.com; l=884; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1330357305; x=1331566905; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KGVohluqQ3eev7t8Rp4C/0LaPxG8IX7LRZ4eteSQOuU=; b=Df7SekEtRHmr+qNC656f+C/bafMMfi5F0Mr+hEbdqZ76d7XWA2Se7dH6 CqRr1YxlssfpJNbY6/GV+QOPwh2xYCbKMxU66KSYKQu2upfgCK1Qb64n7 Z5rBregacNtFtVghlZrNpS9zIwU1pWv0dEve3Zbt+tV2vn7Rx26w5Eb0j 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EADOjS0+Q/khR/2dsb2JhbABDsziBB4F0AQEEEgECASJAER0PFg8JAwIBAgE3BAoGAQwIAQEeh2ShIAGDMQ8Bk0KMeBYOAQ8CAgcGBAMEAwgECgcPAQoDAwMChRgBAhwBg3AElT2Sbg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,491,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="130726394"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2012 15:41:40 +0000
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1RFfeZh025262; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:41:40 GMT
Received: from stbryant-mac2.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id q1RFfd0X009455; Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:41:39 GMT
Message-ID: <4F4BA433.6060804@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:41:39 +0000
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jounay Frédéric <Frederic.Jounay@orange.ch>, draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements@tools.ietf.org, pwe3 <pwe3@ietf.org>, "pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <pwe3-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
References: <4F44D3C5.1010004@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F44D3C5.1010004@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [PWE3] Fwd: draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements will be returned to the WG
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
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: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:41:46 -0000

I reviewed draft-ietf-pwe3-p2mp-pw-requirements-05
It is my view that this draft falls short of
the bar and that we can do a lot better in terms
of crisply defining the requirements and the
architecture.

I am concerned that the approach was to
bolt p2mp onto the two PWE3 framework RFCs without
standing back and considering the problem on
its own merits. The way that  p2p links are
used in the draft is in my view clumsy
compared to the way that it is added in RFC5331/2.

In particular we should be relying heavily on
RFC5331 and RFC5332 at both the LSP and the
PW level. Using those RFCs as a base, PWE3
should be able to produce a much shorter
simpler framework. The OAM architecture also
needs to be fully described and the design
needs to lean heavily on the MPLS P2MP OAM
work.

With regret I am therefore return the draft
to the WG.

- Stewart