Huub,
I agree.
Regards,
Malcolm
Huub van Helvoort <huubatwork(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Sent by: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
09/10/2011 07:42 AM
Please respond to
huubatwork(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
To
IETF Discussion <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
cc
Subject
Re: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The
Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational
RFC
All,
I still do not support this draft.
Section 6 focusses on the interworking between two toolsets
In transport networks we *never* have peer-2-peer OAM interworking.
If it was required it would have explicitly been mentioned in
the MPLS-TP requirements RFC.
Why don't you simply read draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn or Annex B
of G.8110.1 where it is documented how different toolsets can
be deployed in a network without any issues.
Section 6 is totally irrelevant.
Regards, Huub.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf