Hi,
For your questions:
1) Both of the versions of G.8113.1 reach the technical and industry
maturity, for there are only editorial and little modifications such as
Global ICC based MEP/MIP formats.
2) In last SG15 plenary meeting in Dec, at the drafting session of Q10 on
G.8113.1 and G.8113.2, both OAM solutions could not meet all the
requirements of RFC5654 and RFC5860, you could check this in
wd16_MPLS-TP_requirementsTable_G.8113.1and
wd15r1_MPLS-TP_requirementsTable-G-8113-2-R1 in
http://ifa.itu.int/t/2009/sg15/exchange/wp3/q10/2011-12-Geneva/.
Li Fang from CATR
2012/3/14 Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
<nurit(_dot_)sprecher(_at_)nsn(_dot_)com>
Hi,****
Which version of G.8113.1 has reached the technical and industry maturity?
Is it the one that was submitted to WTSA or is it the one that the ITU
worked on the December meeting? Or maybe it is the same document that the
ITU worked on in the December meeting and sent to WTSA? Can you please
clarify the point?****
You say that " the codepoint allocation from IETF should allow the ITU-T
to progress refinements to G.8113.1 such that it could satisfy all the
functional requirements defined in RFC 5860" – does it meant that the
matured version does not fully satisfy the requirements presented in RFC
5860?****
Best regards,****
Nurit****
** **
*From:* ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] *On Behalf
Of *ext Fangyu Li
*Sent:* Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:36 PM
*To:* ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
*Cc:* lifang(_at_)catr(_dot_)cn
*Subject:* RE: Last
Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated
Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
****
** **
I support the allocation of an ACH codepoint to G.8113.1. ****
****
For G.8113.1 had reached the technical and industry maturity to be
assigned a code point, the codepoint allocation from IETF should allow the
ITU-T to progress refinements to G.8113.1 such that it could satisfy all
the functional requirements defined in RFC 5860. ****
****
-----????? ??????-----
???: ext Ross Callon
????: 13/03/2012, 19:27
??: Andrew G. Malis; Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
????: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
????: RE: Last
Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an
Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to
Informational RFC
I agree that the allocation of a code point should be to a specific
version of 8113.1, and specifically should be to the final version that is
approved by the ITU-T (assuming that a final version of 8113.1 will be
approved by the ITU-T). This would imply that
draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point should contain a normative reference to
the final approved version of 8113.1.****
Given normal IETF processes, this implies that the final RFC resulting
from draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point could be published as soon as the
final version of 8113.1 is approved (with the understanding that there will
be a small normal delay between "approved" and "published" which gives time
for coordination). Given that the final version of 8113.1 might need to
reference the RFC resulting from draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point, a bit
of cooperation might be needed between editorial staff at the ITU and RFC
editorial staff, but I don't see why this should be a problem (I am sure
that they all have access to email).****
Ross****
****