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

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Thu, 22 September 2011 10:47 UTC

Return-Path: <amalis@gmail.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 43BEF21F8B4B for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 03:47:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.232
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.232 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.233, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 VFH1MrWtfd-1 for <pwe3@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 03:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C1E21F8B2E for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 03:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iaby26 with SMTP id y26so3415523iab.31 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 03:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=G04QAbbJDLupZvqucIUptJ9Gig9/+d65V/CRs0aOqq0=; b=xaZItvQkZssbVtYh+4bFEsLLh/i9YkQ+pEWhkLxY3jrvCiY0GfUsXicUb4M+So/2Ek hWZ/DkPNG9FJlSlkoA/o4ECIeA4VOp/MOddY9xLG8e1tf8U1dfmTdLB0ZoFbHrvxT4q/ R45d9hXdFkpvOvUo5VPUFeGebY29GiTTM+sQ8=
Received: by 10.42.152.69 with SMTP id h5mr1942714icw.68.1316688600129; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 03:50:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: amalis@gmail.com
Received: by 10.42.225.3 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 03:49:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAA=duU0VkZ1AyHyZ2GX5vbrP2cjy_VPxugawyeoptrQakF59QQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA=duU0VkZ1AyHyZ2GX5vbrP2cjy_VPxugawyeoptrQakF59QQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 18:49:40 +0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: lmowPPTD2mlXxxRhWW_toGSGa4w
Message-ID: <CAK+d4xvp8Mpn2fbrmdNPBNTSNy2w3PdR8ddy9UrKbi2gOmBs5Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: pwe3@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
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: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 10:47:31 -0000

It's now been two weeks since the call to discuss the adoption of
draft-zhang-mpls-tp-pw-oam-config as a PWE3 working group draft.

There has been spirited discussion and opinions both for and against
working group adoption. However, while a good number of individuals
commented on the draft, the comments were concentrated from a
relatively small number of organizations (I know that we're not
supposed to pay attention to these things, but of course we do).

I would like to remind the WG that this draft was not done in a vacuum,
but was derived from requirements in RFCs 5654 and 5860. The base
requirement is from RFC 5654:

 51  The MPLS-TP control plane MUST support the configuration and
     modification of OAM maintenance points as well as the activation/
     deactivation of OAM when the transport path or transport service
     is established or modified.

There is a similar requirement in section 2.1.6 of RFC 5860.

The draft addresses two separate issues:

- OAM capability advertisement to handle the new OAM tools from MPLS-TP.
- Configuration of those tools using the control plane.

We already do the first for VCCV using tLDP, so presumably this is
noncontroversial.

There is already precedent for the second part, notably OAM
configuration in LSP signaling in CCAMP.

There also seemed to be a bit of confusion on what's actually in the
draft. There were some comments that we shouldn't be sending OAM down
the control channel. That's not in the draft, so that's an orthogonal
issue. There was also a comment that we don't need a new management
protocol, but that's not in the draft either.

I am going to keep the call for adoption open for a few more days,
with the hope that more WG participants will (re-)read the draft and
speak up. There is also the possibility of splitting the draft in
two, to separately address the capability advertisement and the OAM
configuration. I would like to hear opinions on this as well.

Thanks,
Andy

On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@gmail.com> 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