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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
ext Fangyu Li
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:36 PM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: lifang(_at_)catr(_dot_)cn
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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
????: 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