I support the draft.
Multi-vendor interoperable implementations of the protocol the draft is asking
for the allocation of a code point has been already tested and deployed and
therefore I agree with Mr. Petch when he says we should approve it now to
facilitate the migration of the existing
Dear all,
Wrt draft-betts, I believe it is appropriate to allocate a code point for the
referenced specification without any restriction about the possibility to
evolve messages/protocols when compatibility is preserved. It is not only
unnecessary but it does not help in improving the
Dear all,
Wrt draft-betts, I believe it is appropriate to allocate a code point for the
referenced specification without any restriction about the possibility to
evolve messages/protocols when compatibility is preserved. It is not only
unnecessary but it does not help in improving the
John,
I often appreciate Erminio's comments on this mailing list but I had not till
now the pleasure to meet him because he does not attend the IETF meetings.
At my knowledge, I'm the only Alessandro that has been following MPLS-TP
standardization process and apparently it seems to me you want
Dear all,
I do not support.
Basically I think it is superfluous dedicate an RFC to state it is better
having one standard instead of two ones or many... for sure the lower are the
variants the better is for the industry (one is the ideal).
When two or more standards or de-facto standards exist
07
-Messaggio originale-
Da: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbry...@cisco.com]
Inviato: mercoledì 5 ottobre 2011 12:24
A: D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo
Cc: adr...@olddog.co.uk; m...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
Oggetto: Re: [mpls] R: FW: Last Call:
draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt
Innovation
Via Reiss Romoli, 274 - 10148 Torino
phone: +39 011 228 5887
mobile: +39 335 766 9607
fax: +39 06 418 639 07
-Messaggio originale-
Da: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stbry...@cisco.com]
Inviato: mercoledì 5 ottobre 2011 12:24
A: D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo
Cc: adr...@olddog.co.uk; m
Dear all,
I regret to say I have the same concerns expressed by Rui and Erminio about the
procedure adopted for this document that has brought so many discussions.
Anyway, probably because of the lack of a reasonable time (in my opinion) for
discussions about the previous document version (-04)
Dear all,
I have the following comments:
Sect 7: A maintenance point is either a Maintenance
Entity Group End-point (MEP) or a Maintenance Entity Group
Intermediate Point (MIP). Maintenance points are uniquely associated
with a MEG.
This is true for MEP. MIP, as currently defined, are not
