Re: [PWE3] OAM Msg Mapping Drafts

"HENDERICKX Wim" <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.be> Fri, 25 July 2008 18:06 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 AB0983A68A5; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:06:42 -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 85C1F3A685F for <pwe3@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.248
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 Sh6xNtNEe6DV for <pwe3@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail5.alcatel.fr (smail5.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.27]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302773A6942 for <pwe3@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRVELSBHS06.ad2.ad.alcatel.com (frvelsbhs06.ad2.ad.alcatel.com [155.132.6.78]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/ICT) with ESMTP id m6PI6X2b004526; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:06:33 +0200
Received: from FRVELSMBS22.ad2.ad.alcatel.com ([155.132.6.51]) by FRVELSBHS06.ad2.ad.alcatel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:59:21 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:59:20 +0200
Message-ID: <B128F666D4C8BD4FBF56CEAFB2DB66D7023E79BD@FRVELSMBS22.ad2.ad.alcatel.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [PWE3] OAM Msg Mapping Drafts
Thread-Index: AcjuYV++vdZ2s43nRY2Ov+Gl3XFagAAHsp+G
From: HENDERICKX Wim <wim.henderickx@alcatel-lucent.be>
To: stbryant@cisco.com, pwe3@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jul 2008 17:59:21.0607 (UTC) FILETIME=[2A7C4170:01C8EE80]
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 155.132.188.13
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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0220176755=="
Sender: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org

Option a since no iwk is specified in these drafts

Cheers,
Wim
_________________
sent from blackberry

----- Original Message -----
From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org <pwe3-bounces@ietf.org>
To: pwe3 <pwe3@ietf.org>
Sent: Fri Jul 25 16:16:34 2008
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