Hi Peter, A general comment: The terminology in this document is not always aligned with other OAM work done in the IETF (or in the IEEE). I understand it aims at aligning to RFC6136, but still the terminology is not aligned to other IETF work. For example, I could not find any mentions of basic terms like "connectivity verification", "continuity check", "maintenance point". The terms "fault" and "failure" are used intermittently although they typically have different meanings in the context of OAM.
I would suggest to align the terminology to existing IETF RFCs/drafts, e.g.: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-oam-overview http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6371 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis Two edits/typo fixes: Section 1.3 " [Y.1731] ITU-T Std. Y.1731. This document is expected to provide a subset of the requirements for NVO3 at the Tenant level." ==>A semantic note: Y.1730 defines REQUIREMENTS, while Y.1731 defines mechanisms. Section 8.2 - [IEEE802.1ah] ==> this reference is not mentioned in the document - how is 802.1ah related to this draft? Did you mean 802.3ah (EFM)? Tal. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of AshwoodsmithPeter Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 5:14 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [nvo3] NVO3 OAM requirements A few of us took a crack at OAM requirements for NVO3. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ashwood-nvo3-operational-requirement-00 We appreciate your comments/feedback/contributions/flames etc. Peter
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
