Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] New Liaison Statement, "Update to "MPLS-TP NM Req-03 Avaiable (ref # 004.02)" (ref 04.003)"

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 11:03:08 +0200

All,

(with my mead team hat on)

I have a question on this, we are just about to receive a liaison
from ITU-T that will acknowledge that the IETF can go ahead and
publish the MPLS-TP NM requirements.

This looks like a contribution to the ITU-T SG15 WP3, it has a
possibility to be approved Oct 9, then it will take another
two weeks before we have the input from ITU-T, one to do the
update of the draft + three for a short wglc and an ITU-T
response.

Are we prepared to delay publication of the MPLS-TP NM Req
another 10 weeks? Please note that this will result in
approximately the same delay for the entire MPLS-TP
project.

Wouldn't it be better that the authors of this contribution
brought it into the IETF according to the change process.

/Loa

[email-masked] wrote:
> 
> Hello all
>    I have a proposal for MPLS-TP NM requirement, which is attached, 
> please take a look.\
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------
> ZTE Corporation ,Liantang ShenZhen China
> TEL: +86-755-26773000-6798
>    +86 13077888087
> FAX: +86-755-25737515
> E-FAX: +86-755-25732914
> Email: [email-masked]
> -----------------------------------------------
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to others.
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender.
> This message has been scanned for viruses and Spam by ZTE Anti-Spam system.
> 

-- 

Loa Andersson                         email: [email-masked]
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [email-masked]
Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
                                              +46 767 72 92 13

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:24:31 +0100

[Continuing the CC list. Appologies for this - it seems excessive]

Qiaogang,

You have raised an interesting functional requirement, but you need to 
understand where we are in the process for draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req.

Working Group last call was held in the IETF and ended on July 10th. This 
was liaised to the ITU-T on June 27th, and SG15 was requested to reply by 
July 24th.

SG 15 provided a review in COM15-LS57-E on July 20th, and requested specific 
changes before supporting approval.

The resolution to several discussions about the requested changes were 
provided by the IETF in a liaison on August 19th. This liaison also noted 
that the remaining points had been accepted for inclusion in the next 
revision of the draft.

The resolution to the points identified by the IETF was confirmed in a 
liaison from the ITU-T on August 28th (COM15-LS59-E), clearing the way for 
the final revision of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-nm-req.

In due course, this final revision was liaised to the ITU-T by the IETF on 
September 1st (updated on September 4th). The purpose of this final step is 
to verify that the changes requested by the ITU-T have been correctly 
applied. It is not the intention that new requirements can be raised at this 
late stage.

I suggest that you have two ways forward within the cooperative process 
between our two SDOs.

1. You can bring your new requirements to the IETF as part of IETF last 
call. This is a legitimate thing to do when the draft is reviewed across the 
whole of the IETF. You should watch for the last call announcement on the 
IETF Announce list ([email-masked]) and send your discussion points 
to the IETF Discuss list ([email-masked]). I would note, however, that your 
proposal is not a technical revision to the existing document - it is a new 
functional requirement. Therefore, it is unlikely to be accepted at this 
stage, so you would do better to pursue the other option.

2. You can bring your new requirement to the IETF as a new piece of work. 
The correct way to do this is to write it up as an Internet-Draft, and 
discuss the draft on the IETF mailing list (you can see this process 
described in RFC4929). Of course, you can discuss your requirements within 
the ITU-T based on your contribution to the SG5 plenary. Indeed, this is a 
sensible approach so that you can collect the input and opinions of the SG15 
experts who have worked on the area you have raised as a potential new 
requirement. But please note that, if you do or do not get support from the 
experts in SG15, the correct way to bring new requirements to the MPLS-TP 
table is by following the process documented in RFC4929.

Regards,
Adrian

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Loa Andersson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; 
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [mead] New Liaison Statement, "Update to "MPLS-TP NM Req-03 
Avaiable (ref # 004.02)" (ref 04.003)"

>> ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail 
>> is solely property of the sender's organization. This mail communication 
>> is confidential. Recipients named above are obligated to maintain secrecy 
>> and are not permitted to disclose the contents of this communication to 
>> others.
>> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are 
>> addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the 
>> originator of the message. Any views expressed in this message are those 
>> of the individual sender.
> _______________________________________________
> mead mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mead
>

---

From: Thomas Walsh <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:01:12 -0400

Loa,

My thoughts:

The MPLS change process is appropriate for contributions to ITU-T that have been accepted there.  SG 15 participated in crafting the change process.  

Or contributors can write internet drafts and submit directly to IETF.  

Tom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Loa Andersson
> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 5:03 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; mpls-
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]

---

From: Malcolm Betts <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 10:00:38 -0400

Ad hoc MPLS-TP co-chair hat on:

The liaison statement only requested confirmation that the changes we
(the ITU-T) requested earlier in the review process have been correctly
implemented.  You have identified an interesting and important
requirement that we all overlooked during the development of the draft.
However, it is not appropriate to attempt to have it included in this
version of the requirements at this late stage.

The best way to get this added is to review this contribution at the
next SG15 meeting and if we reach agreement send a liaison requesting
that the IETF initiate work on an update.  This would progress much more
rapidly if we could also provide an initial version of an internet
draft.

Regards,

Malcolm Betts
Co-chair ad hoc MPLS-TP 

> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 6:25 AM
> To: Loa Andersson; [email-masked]
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Adrian Farrel
> Subject: Re: [mead] New Liaison Statement, "Update to "MPLS-TP NM Req-
> 03 Avaiable (ref # 004.02)" (ref 04.003)"
>

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:49:30 +0200

Tom,

I was suggesting what I think is the most rapid and effective way,
forward.

If the authors want to make a contribution to the ITU-T and have it
accepted there first I've no problem with that.

/Loa

--

---

From: Thomas Walsh <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 16:02:13 -0400

Loa,

I agree. The change process would facilitate progressing agreed ITU-T contributions in IETF.  I think we are on the same page.

Tom  

> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 3:50 PM
> To: Thomas Walsh
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> > The MPLS change process is appropriate for contributions to ITU-T that
> have been accepted there.  SG 15 participated in crafting the change
> process.
> >