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