On Sep 29, 2011, at 3:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > 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 personally liked your idea of moving to an appendix. That keeps them in black and white and in a place that can be referenced. --Tom > 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 > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf