Also taking my chair hat off ... as Malcolm stated that G.8113.1 applies to PWs, and the requested allocation is in a registry that originated in the PWE3 working group, I agree that a PWE3 WG last call is warranted. This could certainly take place in parallel with the MPLS WG last call. Cheers, Andy On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Loa Andersson <loa@xxxxx> wrote: > All (taking chair hat off), > > I agree with Ross's comments below that if the document is last called > it should go through a wg last call (pwe3 and mpls) and through an IETF > last call. > > I agree that these last calls could be in parallel is necessary, but I > believe that running the wg last call first and the IETF last call would > be beneficial. Given that we have a stable document with stable > references to last call. > > /Loa > > > > On 2012-01-13 06:43, Ross Callon wrote: >>> >>> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> mpls mailing list >> mpls@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > > > -- > > > Loa Andersson email: loa.andersson@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Sr Strategy and Standards Manager loa@xxxxx > Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13 > +46 767 72 92 13 > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf