Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
> The MPLS working group is discussing sending a liaison to ITU-T SG11 in
> response to their liaison (https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1869/)
> originally targeted at OPSAWG.
I'm not an MPLS person, and I don't do ITU-T, but:
> If you feel:
> - OPSAWG should co-sign
Yes.
> - MPLS should butt out
I think that your reply is appropriate.
> The MPLS working group would like to thank you for sharing your
requirements
> as expressed in Q.3962.
> Our current understanding of your requirements suggests that all or most
of
> your requirements can be addressed using existing IP/MPLS OAM tools.
I'm leaving this part here for others that didn't read that far.
Maybe list a few RFCs here?
> We would welcome all experts to bring these requirements to the IETF's
MPLS
> working group with a view to working collaboratively on an Informational
RFC
> that describes how to deliver the function you want to see. Obviously,
> should any lacunae be discovered during this process, the working group
> would also be pleased to engage in additional protocol work to resolve any
> issues.
I didn't know what lacunae are.
dictionary.com told me: noun
An empty space or a missing part; a gap.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
