> Adrian wrote: > My review of the write-up and discussions... > > 3. There seems to be quite a feeling on the mailing lists that this document > should be run through the MPLS working group. The write-up makes a case for > progressing it as AD sponsored. As far as I can see, the main assertions to > answer are as follows. Do you have a view on these points before I make a > decision on what to do? > > a. This is a proposal to use an MPLS code point and so is part of MPLS by >definition. > > b. The type of network being managed by the OAM described in G.8113.1 is an MPLS > network. Therefore, this is clearly relevant to the MPLS working . > > Do you object to this going through the MPLS on principle, or were you just > hoping to save the WG the work? If the latter, and if the WG wants to look at > the draft, the easiest approach seems to be to redirect the work to the working > group. My personal opinion (speaking as an individual)... It is pretty clear that there is a lot of interest in this topic in the MPLS WG. It also is clear that this proposal is very much about MPLS. Thus draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point needs to be last called in the MPLS WG. It seems clear that the document also needs IETF last call. I assume this means that one last call would be posted to both the MPLS and IETF WG lists. It seems that this same last call should also be copied to the PWE3 list. Ross _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf