Re: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Scott,

On 2011-09-30 05:30, Scott O Bradner wrote:
> I'm having a hard time understanding just what this document is trying to do
> 
> I understand from the title that it is supposed to be telling the reader why a single OAM 
> solution is a good idea for MPLS-TP
> 
> if that is the case I'm not all that sure what the purpose of sections 4 and 5 are for - they seem
> to be exploring land outside the reservation - how about just addressing the topic in the title?

That goes a bit further than my own suggestion of moving them to
an Appendix, but they are indeed off the main track of the argument.
You're probably right; it would be more succinct and equally
powerful without them.

I think we all know that competing standards are a bad thing, without
having to get the historical details of SDH vs SONET right. Whatever
good work was done to fix the SDH/SONET case, the fact is that users were
seriously inconvenienced, exactly as they were earlier by the difference
between E1 and T1. [Anecdote about the first T1 link carrying IP across
the Atlantic deleted.]

   Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]