Re: [PWE3] OAM Msg Mapping Drafts

["Don Fedyk" <[e-mail]>]

+1

Option a) 

Don  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On 
> Behalf Of Busschbach, Peter B (Peter)
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 1:27 PM
> To: Carlos Pignataro; [e-mail]
> Cc: pwe3
> Subject: Re: [PWE3] OAM Msg Mapping Drafts
> 
> 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
> 
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3