Tom, Did Huub and Malcolm represent the ITU in their assessments? I guess other ITU members have different view on this! Best regards, Nurit -----Original Message----- From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext t.petch Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 5:06 PM To: stbryant@xxxxxxxxx Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationofan Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T EthernetbasedOAM) to Informational RFC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stewart Bryant" <stbryant@xxxxxxxxx> To: "t.petch" <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Fangyu Li" <fangyuli1999@xxxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 4:12 PM 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 > On 16/03/2012 08:46, t.petch wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Stewart Bryant"<stbryant@xxxxxxxxx> > > To: "Fangyu Li"<fangyuli1999@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc:<lifang@xxxxxxx>;<ietf@xxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:53 PM > >> On 14/03/2012 13:36, Fangyu Li wrote: > >>> 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. > >> Please can you tell me version of the G.8113.1 text one would > >> need to implement to be able to seamlessly interwork with the > >> equipment that has already been been deployed? > > Stewart > > > > I am sure you already know the answer to that from posts made to the mpls list, > > where we have been told that there is currently an extensive deployment > > ('running code') using an experimental value (interesting that there is a last > > call just ending seeking to exterminate such practice, at least for application > > protocols) and that the wish is to move to a standards-based value which will, > > perforce, be a different value. > > > > Tom Petch > > Tom, > > I don't think you understood my question. > > There are several version of the G.8113.1 text in circulation within > the ITU-T. I was asking which version accurately describes the > deployed protocol. Stewart One of the e-mails I had in mind was that of Huub Helvoort last December where he said "The draft recommendation G.8113.1 is stable, there have been no major technical changes since it was sent to the IETF (when it still had the draft name G.tpoam) attache to liaison: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/983/ This is also the status I reported when we did discuss this during IETF82 in Taipei." while another such e-mail is that of Malcolm Betts in January where he said "I can confirm that the draft is requesting a code point for the version of G.8113.1 that was forwarded to WTSA by SG 15, this is the same as the draft that was determined in February 2011, I am not anticipating any changes prior to the approval decision at WTSA. None of the changes in G.8113.1 that were anticipated in draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01 were implemented, I will post a new version draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point to correctly reflect the content and title on G.8113.1 and respond to the other questions later this week." I was thinking that that was enough reassurance about the protocol and its stability. I agree that the documents as liaised to us specify that special value of XXXX but we were told, on the mpls list, that an experimental value was in use, ie one that fell within the remit of section 10 of RFC5586, which, again, I took to be sufficient information. Tom Petch > I would be interested to also know what ACh Type it is actually running > on. > > Stewart > > > >