All, I have read this draft and support the publication as an informational RFC. I believe the document is needed since it explains why it is not beneficial to standardize two solutions for the same purpose. The document also makes clear some of the aspects I was not aware of. It is obvious that two solutions would cause a lot of unnecessary effort and costs. There are many examples which show that competing standards are contra-productive for the goals of each party. I fully agree with one of the statements on this list. "I think it would be irresponsible of the IETF not to document this situation." Mehmet > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-announce-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-announce-bounces@xxxxxxxx] > On Behalf Of ext The IESG > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 9:43 PM > To: IETF-Announce > Subject: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> > (TheReasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) toInformational > RFC > > > The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider > the following document: > - 'The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM' > <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> as an Informational > RFC > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2011-10-24. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > The MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP) is a profile of MPLS technology > for use in transport network deployments. That is, MPLS-TP is a set > of functions and features selected from the wider MPLS toolset and > applied in a consistent way to meet the needs and requirements of > operators of packet transport networks. > > During the process of development of the profile, additions to the > MPLS toolset have been made to ensure that the tools available met > the requirements. These additions were motivated by MPLS-TP, but form > part of the wider MPLS toolset such that any of them could be used in > any MPLS deployment. > > One major set of additions provides enhanced support for Operations, > Administration, and Maintenance (OAM). This enables fault management > and performance monitoring to the level needed in a transport > network. Many solutions and protocol extensions have been proposed to > address these OAM requirements, and this document sets out the > reasons for selecting a single, coherent set of solutions for > standardization. > > > The file can be obtained via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-consideration s/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-consideration s/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf