I support publication of this draft, although the SONET discussion could be discarded. Also, I would like to see a reference to RFC 5921 in the introduction. RFC 5317 calls for one, and only one, protocol solution. At least that is how I read JWT Agreement. The most relevant text seems to be in Section 9: They stated that in their view, 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. Since the publication of RFC 5317, the MPLS WG consensus continues to be that only one OAM solution should become a standard. Russ On Oct 5, 2011, at 11:02 PM, Rui Costa wrote: > c) To the question "which requirement stated in the RFCs are not satisfied by the singe OAM solution defined in IETF?": > For instance, RFC5860 2.2.3: " The protocol solution(s) developed to perform this function > proactively MUST also apply to [...] point-to-point unidirectional LSPs, and point-to- > multipoint LSPs." _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf