Re: [PWE3] OAM Msg Mapping Drafts

<nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com> Fri, 25 July 2008 18:00 UTC

Return-Path: <pwe3-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: pwe3-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-pwe3-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BCAD3A68E1; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pwe3@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 943E83A68E1 for <pwe3@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pf-zkO0zN6H7 for <pwe3@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from irvmail2.verizon.com (irvmail2.verizon.com [192.76.80.130]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B16A33A68B2 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:00:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpftw3.verizon.com (smtpftw3.verizon.com [138.83.140.92]) by irvmail2.verizon.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m6PI0pt8010628; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:00:55 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from ftwccout01.verizon.com (ftwccout01.verizon.com [138.83.131.134]) by smtpftw3.verizon.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m6PI0p7Q018109; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:00:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ftwccout01.verizon.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by ftwccout01.verizon.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 7EA3F528002; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:00:51 -0400 (EDT)
X-AuditID: 8a538386-a40ecbb000000a47-42-488a14d33c59
Received: from smtptpa3.verizon.com (unknown [138.83.71.176]) by ftwccout01.verizon.com (EMF) with ESMTP id 54DCB4E4002; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:00:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from FHDP1CCMXCG02.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.240.34]) by smtptpa3.verizon.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m6PI0oFD019263; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:00:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from FHDP1CCMXCV03.us.one.verizon.com ([166.68.240.13]) by FHDP1CCMXCG02.us.one.verizon.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:00:50 -0400
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 14:00:49 -0400
Message-ID: <B54DA37AC95D8848A40CF035DCF21CBC247C72@FHDP1CCMXCV03.us.one.verizon.com>
In-Reply-To: <4889E042.2090404@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [PWE3] OAM Msg Mapping Drafts
Thread-Index: AcjuYV2MaswtZdpXQf2ax2/d6tkw2AAF1/vg
References: <4889E042.2090404@cisco.com>
From: nabil.n.bitar@verizon.com
To: stbryant@cisco.com, pwe3@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jul 2008 18:00:50.0836 (UTC) FILETIME=[5FAB8540:01C8EE80]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: Re: [PWE3] OAM Msg Mapping Drafts
X-BeenThere: pwe3@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Pseudo Wires Edge to Edge <pwe3.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3>, <mailto:pwe3-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org

I support option (a).

Thanks,
Nabil

-----Original Message-----
From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Stewart Bryant
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:17 AM
To: pwe3
Subject: [PWE3] OAM Msg Mapping Drafts


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
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3