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
Considering that the need for this code point is a result of the ITU
not fully complying with the IETF agreement, I cannot agree that we
should simply allocate a code point for whatever the ITU wants to do
in the future.
It seems the best of the options to allocate a code point (much better
than
All,
Two points to consider:
1) Below it is stated:
In the future, all codepoint allocations to the ITU-T should be tied to
one specific, dated revision of their specification only. This is similar
to the ITU-T's own processes, such as section 2.2.1 of Rec. A.5, which
requires a version
Nurit,
Section 2 “Scope of the Ethernet based OAM ACH Type” contains the
following text:
The code point allocated by this document is intended to be used only for
Ethernet based OAM messages, defined in the ITU-T Recommendation
[G.8113.1], carried in the G-ACh . These Ethernet based OAM
Malcolm,
As mentioned before, I cannot support the publication of the current version of
draft-betts...it must be revised first to address the concerns I and others
raised on the list.
Maybe you could clarify how the text in your draft can be improved to protect
the use of the code point from
- Original Message -
From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) nurit.sprec...@nsn.com
To: Andrew G. Malis agma...@gmail.com; ext Ross Callon
rcal...@juniper.net
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 8:09 PM
Subject: הנדון: RE: Last
Ross,
i am afraid that you missed the point. There will not be a final version since
as written in draft-betts, all ITU recommendations are subject to revisions,
and the code point will also be used for future revisions of the document. New
messages/protocols can be defined in future revisions
