Subject: [mpls-tp] working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req-01.txt

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 17:24:49 +0200

ALL,

This is to start a two week working group last call on

draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req-01.txt

Please send your comments to the mpls-tp mailing list.

This working group last call is joint between the mpls,
ccamp. Pwe3 and l2vpn.

The working group lst call ends on May 19th eob.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson

Sr Strategy and Standards Manager    phone:  +46 10 717 52 13
Ericsson ///                                 +46 767 72 92 13 

                                       email:  [email-masked]
                                               [email-masked]
                                               [email-masked]

---

From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 19:22:33 +0200

Loa

I am struggling to review this document.

If it were ITU-T G.7793xt (say:-),  I would not have a problem

But it is an IETF I-D, heading to be an Informational RFC, and IETF RFC are
mostly - some would say should only be - about
protocols.  Some of these requirements clearly impose restrictions on future
protocol elements but much - most? - of it reads more like an RFP from network
operator to NE manufacturer, and have little or no protocol impact.

And where functions may be achieved by protocol, that is not specified as a
requirement, so CLI over ssh would do fine, as would a flashing light or a
rotary dial on the front cover:-)

Um, I am stuck.  I wonder if this really should be an RFC at all in its current
form.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Loa Andersson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>; "Ross Callon"
<[email-masked]>; "George Swallow" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 5:24 PM
Subject: [mpls-tp] working group last call ondraft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req-01.txt

> _______________________________________________
> mpls-tp mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 15:55:52 +0200

Hi,

Please find below my comments to this document: 

1. This document derives its content from the management functionality
defined in the ITU-T recommendation G.7710. I suggest that it also
relates as principal source of input from the IETF ' Guidelines for
Considering Operations and Management of New Protocols and Protocol
Extensions' Internet-Draft -
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opsawg-operations-and-man
agement-07.txt . 

2. In Section 3 I do not know how to translate this requirement: ' An
MPLS-TP management network SHOULD support seamless management
connectivity ...' What is a MPLS-TP management network, is this the same
thing as an MCN? What 'seamless' means in this context? 

3. I cannot make too much sense of section 4. It refers to ITU-T G.7712
which is a heavy architecture document, speaks about OSI and coexistence
between OSI and IP as network layer protocols and other such things.
What does this section really try to say? That in-band transport for
management information SHOULD or MUST be available and that each node of
the management network should be addressable, and its status observable?

4. In Section 7 - what does 'monitoring for signal degradation' mean? In
general I would suggest that this document reuses and refers to the
possible extent at the IPPM terminology

5. In section 7.1 - what does 'performance degradation' mean? 

6. In section 7.2.1 - what do 'on-demand' and 'pro-active' measurement
mean? 

7. The security consideration section must add requirements on the
management interface protocols which MUST have privacy and
authentication capabilities so that the access to the management
information is protected during day-to-day operations. 

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> On Behalf Of Loa Andersson
> Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 6:25 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Adrian Farrel; Ross Callon; 
> George Swallow
> Subject: working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req-01.txt
> 
> ALL,
>

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 11:05:49 +0200

All,

this working group last call has ended.

We have seen quite a bit of comments, could the editors please
compile the comments and respond to them, and also when we have
agreed to resolution re-spin the draft.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson