On Sep 29, 2011, at 3:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Scott,
>
> On 2011-09-30 05:30, Scott O Bradner wrote:
>> I'm having a hard time understanding just what this document is trying to do
>>
>> I understand from the title that it is supposed to be telling the reader why
>> a single OAM
>> solution is a good idea for MPLS-TP
>>
>> if that is the case I'm not all that sure what the purpose of sections 4 and
>> 5 are for - they seem
>> to be exploring land outside the reservation - how about just addressing the
>> topic in the title?
>
> That goes a bit further than my own suggestion of moving them to
> an Appendix, but they are indeed off the main track of the argument.
> You're probably right; it would be more succinct and equally
> powerful without them.
I personally liked your idea of moving to an appendix. That keeps them
in black and white and in a place that can be referenced.
--Tom
> I think we all know that competing standards are a bad thing,
> without
> having to get the historical details of SDH vs SONET right. Whatever
> good work was done to fix the SDH/SONET case, the fact is that users were
> seriously inconvenienced, exactly as they were earlier by the difference
> between E1 and T1. [Anecdote about the first T1 link carrying IP across
> the Atlantic deleted.]
>
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
