Hi,
I fully support Stewart!
G.8113.1 proposes a OAM solution for MPLS-TP networks.
It uses the MPLS EtherType (when transmitted inband and getting the same
treatment as the data traffic).
The document is built on G.8110.1 (MPLS-TP architecture) which refers to
G.8110 (MPLS architecture), and G.8110.1 refers to G.8113.1 back...
This makes it part of MPLS and MPLS-TP.
And it should be reviewed by the MPLS WG.
Best regards,
Nurit
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
ext Stewart Bryant
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 1:55 PM
To: Adrian Farrel
Cc: draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org;
iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Request to publish
draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt
Adrian
"It is the opinion of the document shepherd that discussion of
this document on the working group lists would be a distraction
from the technical protocol work that the working groups
need to do."
I disagree with the document shepherd in his evaluation.
The draft clearly sets out to enable the standardization
of an additional OAM for MPLS, and as such the MPLS WG
need to review the document and its references to
determine the consequences of the technology being
deployed.
Furthermore, all MPLS documents that have so far requested
ACH codepoints have I believe been standards track. Why
is this not also a standards track document?
Stewart
_______________________________________________
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