My understanding is that there is not a stable agreed G.8113.1 document to reference. Is my understanding incorrect?
Russ On Dec 20, 2011, at 11:09 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Hi Adrian, > > Thank you for finding time to respond to this request. As you know I was > attending the same 2 week SG 15 meeting and was probably at least as busy as > you given my official role in the meeting. > > I will update draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point early in the new year based > on the results of SG 15 the ended last Friday and your comments. I will > also discussan update of the shepherd write up with Huub. > > Regards, > > Malcolm > > > > "Adrian Farrel" <[email protected]> > Sent by: [email protected] > 09/12/2011 05:49 AM > Please respond to > [email protected] > > To > <[email protected]>, "'Huub helvoort'" > <[email protected]> > cc > [email protected], [email protected] > Subject > Questions about draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point > > > > > > Hi Malcolm and Huub, > > I have squeezed a little time from the current ITU-T meeting to look at your > draft and write-up. I have also read the email threads on the IETF discussion > list and the MPLS list. Sorry that this has taken me a week to process, but > your > publication request came at pretty much the worst possible time for getting me > to do this task. > > I don't like proliferating threads across multiple mailing lists. On the other > hand it is difficult to ensure that all the constituencies are present, so I > am > perpetuating the cross-posting. > > My review of the document... > > 1. idnits (http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/) shows a couple of nits. I think > only one of these is real (the spurious space in a citation). The other nits > are > spurious caused by citations wrapping across lines. Could you please keep a > note > of the nit so that you can fix it the next time the draft is respun or so it > can > be captured in an RFC Editor Note at a later stage (you don't have to post a > new > revision to address this now unless you really want to). > > 2. This document requests a code point from a registry that contains code > points > that are used equally for MPLS LSPs and pseudowires. I can't tell from the I-D > whether it is your intention that your code point would also be applicable in > both cases. What is your intention? Is this "obvious" from G.8113.1 or does it > need to be clarified? > > > 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. > > 4. G.8113.1 is clearly important to understanding to which the code point is > being put. Thus, an available and stable copy of group. G.8113.1 will be key > to > the last call review of you I-D. Can you make a stable copy available (for > example, through liaison)? How does the editing work currently in progress in > the SG15 meeting affect that availability? > > 5. Can you clarify for me why the suggested value has been suggested. This > will > help guide IANA who would normally do their allocation in a "tidy" way. > > Looking forward to your reply. > > Thanks, > Adrian > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
