Subject: [mpls-tp] Fwd: Mail regarding draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731

From: Huub van Helvoort <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 04:23:06 +0100

Yaacov, hi.

I just noticed that you did send your comments only
to the editors of draft-bhh.
You should have sent your comments also to the relevant
email exploders. I have done that with this response.

Best regards, Huub.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Mail regarding draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731
Date: 	Sun, 31 Oct 2010 09:38:47 +0100
From: 	Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
<[email-masked]>
To: 	[email-masked]

Hi all,

Some quick notes from very cursory review of the draft:

1. In the Introduction – you have a reference to the IEEE 802.1ag that
should be changed from "[12]" to "[14]"!

2. Section 4.1.1 – I think that this is very central to the discussion
of this draft and either the IP addressing should be considered within
scope or you should just make a general statement here about using the
identifiers as defined in [12] and explain where the TLV field is used
in the PDU.

3. Section 4.2 – the statement "It is worth noticing …", IMHO is bad
form – either explain more fully including why there is a need for both
(since later on you obviously support [11]) of these functions based on
the requirements/framework document or just remove the statement and
allow for discussion.

4. Section 4.2 – in addressing the MIP you do not use the TTL field, is
this the intention? Isn't this a deviation from the framework documents?

5. Is section 4.2.1 compatible with [12]? If not, why not?

6. Sections 4.3-4.9 – There is a need to recognize that IETF and ITU
have different working procedures, amongst this (in my understanding) is
the fact that IETF RFCs are static documents as opposed to ITU-T
Recommendations that are (potentially) dynamic documents [interesting
that this is the opposite from the protocol requirements of the two
organizations ;]) ] therefore to specify a IETF protocol by referring to
a format in an ITU document, IMHO, should not be done – since the
ITU format could potentially change!!!

7. Section 5.3 (as an example) – uses some very ITU-centric terminology
and action references, e.g. "the aAIS consequent action",
"server/MT_A_sk" – if these are intended for the IETF audience you
would either need to fully explain these (most probably rewriting
several ITU documents) or translate them into IETF terminology.

DISCLAIMER: This email is intended just for a quick review of the
document and is not intended to voice support or objection to the
contents that would need to be more fully reviewed!!

Best regards,

*//**/Yaacov Weingarten/*

Industry Environment, Packet Transport

Nokia Siemens Networks

Hod Hasharon, Israel 45241

Tel: +972-9-775 1827

Mob: +972-54-220 0977

---

From: "Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 06:22:13 +0100

Huub,

[yw>] You wrote --

Yaacov, hi.

Best regards, Huub.

[yw] I object to your impertinence in taking a clearly private email
(even you noticed that it was private!!) and sending it to the mailing
list without requesting my permission!!  This is a blatant invasion of
my privacy.

I will know in the future not to include you in any of my private
correspondence!

yaacov