1) Both of the versions of G.8113.1 reach the technical and industry maturity, for there are only editorial and little modifications such as Global ICC based MEP/MIP formats.
Hi,
Which version of G.8113.1 has reached the technical and industry maturity? Is it the one that was submitted to WTSA or is it the one that the ITU worked on the December meeting? Or maybe it is the same document that the ITU worked on in the December meeting and sent to WTSA? Can you please clarify the point?
You say that " the codepoint allocation from IETF should allow the ITU-T to progress refinements to G.8113.1 such that it could satisfy all the functional requirements defined in RFC 5860" – does it meant that the matured version does not fully satisfy the requirements presented in RFC 5860?
Best regards,
Nurit
From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext Fangyu Li
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:36 PM
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Cc: lifang@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
I support the allocation of an ACH codepoint to G.8113.1.
For G.8113.1 had reached the technical and industry maturity to be assigned a code point, the codepoint allocation from IETF should allow the ITU-T to progress refinements to G.8113.1 such that it could satisfy all the functional requirements defined in RFC 5860.
-----????? ??????-----
???: ext Ross Callon
????: 13/03/2012, 19:27
??: Andrew G. Malis; Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
????: ietf@xxxxxxxx
????: RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to Informational RFC
I agree that the allocation of a code point should be to a specific version of 8113.1, and specifically should be to the final version that is approved by the ITU-T (assuming that a final version of 8113.1 will be approved by the ITU-T). This would imply that draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point should contain a normative reference to the final approved version of 8113.1.Given normal IETF processes, this implies that the final RFC resulting from draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point could be published as soon as the final version of 8113.1 is approved (with the understanding that there will be a small normal delay between "approved" and "published" which gives time for coordination). Given that the final version of 8113.1 might need to reference the RFC resulting from draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point, a bit of cooperation might be needed between editorial staff at the ITU and RFC editorial staff, but I don't see why this should be a problem (I am sure that they all have access to email).
Ross