Greg Mirsky <[email protected]> writes: > With that said, would the WG consider adoption > of draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header and draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-demand-cc-cv?
I'd like to see a clearer exposition the purposes that this draft supports. "OAM" means "operations, administration, and maintenance", but it seems that the primary vision for this header is including tracing and timing information in data packets (or what appear to be data packets), and not handling broader administration tasks. Also, section 4.1 uses the phrase "Next Prot field in the OOAM header is set to None", but there is no "None" value in the IP protocol number space. You'll need a new IANA allocation for that. Dale _______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
