RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF

Title: RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF

Scott, I agree with the proposal below. Noting that 1 (below) is already completed.....but it goes further than Mina indicated (for brevity I guess) since it also defines all the defects in terms of entry/exit criteria and consequent actions.

BTW - I saw some mails (eg from George) saying they thought the principles/requirements in Y.1710 were good. And if these can be satisfied by some other way (than Y.1711) then I guess that's fine....though clearly not applications will demand this level of treatment (which is actually not that complex anyway, despite what some say), even if an alternative approach is produced.

If this new option 3 is not acceptable, then my vote is for the existing option 1.

regards, Neil

-----Original Message-----
From: Mina Azad [mailto:mazad@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: 07 March 2002 17:23
To: 'Scott Bradner'; ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF

As it's been pointed out on the mailing list in a various ways, option 1 is pragmatic but needs clarification.

I'd like to suggest a third option which is effectively refinement to "1".

Option 3:

Principles of this option: Split the OAM (M stands for management and measurement) work between ITU and ITEF with commitment on both bodies to work towards complementing solutions, taking into consideration the core competency of the two standard bodies and the business drivers behind the technologies (from vendor, operator, and standards perspectives).

In specific, option 3 proposes splitting the OAM in three areas

1) Definition and mechanism for availability and measurement to be handled by ITU

2) ad-hoc diagnostic tools for ip-centric networks to be handled by IETF

3) ad-hoc diagnostic and measurement tools primarily for non-ip-centric networks to be handled by ITU

Regards,

Mina Azad