Adrian wrote:
My review of the write-up and discussions...
3. There seems to be quite a feeling on the mailing lists that this document
should be run through the MPLS working group. The write-up makes a case for
progressing it as AD sponsored. As far as I can see, the main assertions to
answer are as follows. Do you have a view on these points before I make a
decision on what to do?
a. This is a proposal to use an MPLS code point and so is part of MPLS by
definition.
b. The type of network being managed by the OAM described in G.8113.1 is an
MPLS
network. Therefore, this is clearly relevant to the MPLS working .
Do you object to this going through the MPLS on principle, or were you just
hoping to save the WG the work? If the latter, and if the WG wants to look at
the draft, the easiest approach seems to be to redirect the work to the
working
group.
My personal opinion (speaking as an individual)...
It is pretty clear that there is a lot of interest in this topic in the MPLS
WG. It also is clear that this proposal is very much about MPLS. Thus
draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point needs to be last called in the MPLS WG.
It seems clear that the document also needs IETF last call. I assume this means
that one last call would be posted to both the MPLS and IETF WG lists.
It seems that this same last call should also be copied to the PWE3 list.
Ross
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf