Hello Russ, You write:
RFC 5317 calls for one, and only one, protocol solution.
> At least that is how I read JWT Agreement. How the JWT report should be read is written on slide 9 in the PDF: "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"
The most relevant text seems to be in Section 9:
This text is one of the assumptions, that is why we wrote: "*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.
The "OAM technology" in this text refers to to way the OAM frames can be detected in a data-stream. The text you quote is from the summary section, it summarizes the slides 19 - 22: "*MPLS-TP Major Solution Constructs*" which address the GAL-GAch solution. We now have the GAL-GAch technology (RFC5586) to detect OAM frames and this technology will be used in PW and LSP, and enables the use of OAM in deeply nested networks.
Since the publication of RFC 5317, the MPLS WG consensus continues
> to be that only one OAM solution should become a standard. All MPLS-TP OAM tools should comply with RFC5586. A service provider can now pick any set or sub-set of the available OAM tools and use them without fear to disrupt the internet. Looking at the current discussions, there is no consensus (yet) on whether we need a comprehensive set of OAM tools, or a very limited set of OAM tools. Best regards, Huub (JWT, Ad-Hoc, MEAD member). _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf