Are we now going to be subject to daily updates? > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Huub van Helvoort > Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 7:42 AM > To: IETF Discussion > Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations- > 01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) > to Informational RFC > > All, > > I still do not support this draft. > > Section 6 focusses on the interworking between two toolsets > > In transport networks we *never* have peer-2-peer OAM interworking. > If it was required it would have explicitly been mentioned in > the MPLS-TP requirements RFC. > > Why don't you simply read draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn or Annex B > of G.8110.1 where it is documented how different toolsets can > be deployed in a network without any issues. > > Section 6 is totally irrelevant. > > Regards, Huub. > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf