The IESG has approved the following document: - 'OAM Requirements for Point-to-Multipoint MPLS Networks ' <draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-oam-reqs-01.txt> as an Informational RFC This document is the product of the Multiprotocol Label Switching Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Ross Callon and Bill Fenner. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-oam-reqs-01.txt Technical Summary This informational document describes requirements for data plane operations andmanagement for P2MP MPLS LSPs. These requirements apply to all forms of P2MP MPLS LSPs, and include P2MP Traffic Engineered (TE) LSPs and multicast LSPs. Working Group Summary The chairs have not answered this question after multiple requests. The authors report that there was no dissent, and that there was review from multiple experts. Protocol Quality Ross Callon has reviewed this for the IESG. Note to RFC Editor There are a few Nits identified during the Gen-ART review that should be corrected prior to publication. I have copied these here (comments by <Black_David@emc.com>): This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be fixed before publication. Section 2.1 This requirements draft uses RFC 2119 terminology (MUST, SHOULD, etc.). In addition to incorporation of the RFC 2119 boilerplate (already done), please explain that these requirements are being stated as requirements of OAM mechanism and protocol *development*, as opposed to the usual application of RFC 2119 requirements to an actual protocol, as this draft does not specify any protocol. Section 2.3 OAM: Operations and Management OA&M: Operations, Administration and Maintenance. That's an invitation for confusion. The OA&M acronym is not used in this draft - please remove it from this section. Section 4.1 The discussion of limits on proactive OAM loading should probably explicitly say that reactive OAM (dealing with something that has gone wrong) may violate these limits (i.e., cause visible traffic degradation) if that's necessary or useful to try to fix whatever has gone wrong. Also, a wording nit: In practice, of course, the requirements in the previous paragraph may be overcome by careful specification of the anticipated data throughput of LSRs or data links, "overcome" --> "satisfied" or "met" Thanks, --David _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
