Re: [PWE3] OAM Msg Mapping Drafts

[Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]>]

Peter,

On 7/25/2008 1:27 PM, Busschbach, Peter B (Peter) said the following:
> 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.

Luca had the editing pen token and sent me the nroff source file to 
update the l2tpv3 sections. It's not a very unusual flow from what I see 
(more so with short time), and allows for reviewing actual text on a 
draft instead of multiple line-by-line comments that focus on a section. 
However (see next comment),

> 
> 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. 

Yes, Agreed, you are right; that's the ideal case. I'll send my comments 
to the list, and they can be incorporated if the WG finds them useful.

Thanks,

--Carlos.

> 
> 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
>>
> 

-- 
--Carlos Pignataro.
Escalation RTP - cisco Systems

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3