Based on my points in my mail below, please note that the proposed protocol is subject to the provisions of RFC4929 (MPLS Change Process) and must be reviewed by the MPLS WG using RFC4929.
Please redirect it to the MPLS WG and follow the MPLS Change Process. Best regards, Nurit P.S. please note that the proposed solution is the same as "draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-07" that was discussed in the MPLS WG. -----Original Message----- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 6:07 PM To: stbry...@cisco.com; Adrian Farrel Cc: draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-po...@tools.ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; Ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: Request to publish draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt 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-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.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-po...@tools.ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; Ietf@ietf.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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
