Dear WG Chairs, et. al, in their presentation in Singapore the iOAM team pointed to interest in using the extra header right after the GENEVE encapsulation. I've looked at their proposal and believe that the OOAM header, as proposed in the draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header, may suit iOAM as well as active OAM in GENEVE. With that said, would the WG consider adoption of draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header and draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv?
Regards, Greg On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) < [email protected]> wrote: > This email begins a two week poll for adoption of > draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header-03 > in the NVO3 working group. > > > > Please review the draft and send any comments to the NVO3 list. > > Please also indicate whether you support adoption of the draft as an NVO3 > working group document. > > > > Simultaneously, we are also poling for any IPR that may apply to the draft. > > > > Authors and contributors, are you aware of any IPR that applies to this > draft? > > If so, has this IPR been disclosed in compliance with IETF IPR rules (see > RFCs 3979, 4879, 3669 and 5378 for more details)? > > If you are listed as a document author or contributor, please respond to > > this email stating of whether or not you are aware of any relevant > > IPR. The response needs to be sent to the NVO3 WG mailing list. The > > document will not advance to the next stage until a response > > has been received from each author and each contributor. > > > > This poll closes on Friday 14th April 2017. > > > > Regards > > > > Matthew and Sam >
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
