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
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.
On 2012-01-13 06:43, Ross Callon 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
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
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
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.
mpls mailing list
Loa Andersson email:
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu
Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13
+46 767 72 92 13
Ietf mailing list