RE: Request to publish draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Based on my points in my mail below, please note that the proposed
protocol is subject to the provisions of RFC4929 (MPLS
Change Process) and must be reviewed by the MPLS WG using RFC4929. 

Please redirect it to the MPLS WG and follow the MPLS Change Process.

Best regards,
Nurit

P.S. please note that the proposed solution is the same as
"draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-07" that was discussed in the MPLS WG.

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 6:07 PM
To: stbryant@xxxxxxxxx; Adrian Farrel
Cc: draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; iesg@xxxxxxxx;
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Request to publish
draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt

Hi,
I fully support Stewart!
G.8113.1 proposes a OAM solution for MPLS-TP networks. 
It uses the MPLS EtherType (when transmitted inband and getting the same
treatment as the data traffic).
The document is built on G.8110.1 (MPLS-TP architecture) which refers to
G.8110 (MPLS architecture), and G.8110.1 refers to G.8113.1 back...
This makes it part of MPLS and MPLS-TP. 
And it should be reviewed by the MPLS WG.
Best regards,
Nurit

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
ext Stewart Bryant
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 1:55 PM
To: Adrian Farrel
Cc: draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; iesg@xxxxxxxx;
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Request to publish
draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt

Adrian

"It is the opinion of the document shepherd that discussion of
this document on the working group lists would be a distraction
from the technical protocol work that the working groups
need to do."

I disagree with the document shepherd in his evaluation.

The draft clearly sets out to enable the standardization
of an additional OAM for MPLS, and as such the MPLS WG
need to review the document and its references to
determine the consequences of the technology  being
deployed.

Furthermore, all MPLS documents that have so far requested
ACH codepoints have I believe been standards track. Why
is this not also a standards track document?

Stewart




_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]