Scott,
On 2011-09-30 05:30, Scott O Bradner wrote:
I'm having a hard time understanding just what this document is trying to do
I understand from the title that it is supposed to be telling the reader why
a single OAM
solution is a good idea for MPLS-TP
if that is the case I'm not all that sure what the purpose of sections 4 and
5 are for - they seem
to be exploring land outside the reservation - how about just addressing the
topic in the title?
That goes a bit further than my own suggestion of moving them to
an Appendix, but they are indeed off the main track of the argument.
You're probably right; it would be more succinct and equally
powerful without them.
I think we all know that competing standards are a bad thing, without
having to get the historical details of SDH vs SONET right. Whatever
good work was done to fix the SDH/SONET case, the fact is that users were
seriously inconvenienced, exactly as they were earlier by the difference
between E1 and T1. [Anecdote about the first T1 link carrying IP across
the Atlantic deleted.]
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf