I support publication of this draft, although the SONET discussion could be
discarded. Also, I would like to see a reference to RFC 5921 in the
introduction.
RFC 5317 calls for one, and only one, protocol solution. At least that is how
I read JWT Agreement. The most relevant text seems to be in Section 9:
They stated that in their view, it is technically feasible that the
existing MPLS architecture can be extended to meet the requirements
of a Transport profile, and that the architecture allows for a single
OAM technology for LSPs, PWs, and a deeply nested network.
Since the publication of RFC 5317, the MPLS WG consensus continues to be that
only one OAM solution should become a standard.
Russ
On Oct 5, 2011, at 11:02 PM, Rui Costa wrote:
c) To the question "which requirement stated in the RFCs are not satisfied by
the singe OAM solution defined in IETF?":
For instance, RFC5860 2.2.3: " The protocol solution(s) developed to perform
this function
proactively MUST also apply to [...] point-to-point unidirectional LSPs, and
point-to-
multipoint LSPs."
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf