All, Section 1,1 also contains the text: [RFC5317] includes the analysis that "it is technically feasible that the existing MPLS architecture can be extended to meet the requirements of a Transport profile, and that the architecture allows for a single OAM technology for LSPs, PWs, and a deeply nested network." This is a quote from slide 113 in the PDF version of RFC5317 and should be read in realtion to the statement on slide 12 of the same RFC: "This presentation is a collection of assumptions, discussion points and decisions that the combined group has had during the months of March and April, 2008 This represents the *agreed upon starting point* for the technical analysis of the T-MPLS requirements from the ITU-T and the MPLS architecture to meet those requirements" So the quoted text in the draft is one of the assumptions. The fact that there are currently *two* OAM mechanisms (and not a *single*), i.e. one for PW and one for LSP proves that the assumption was not correct. Regards, Huub (member of the JWT). _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf