All,
I have read this draft and support the publication as an informational
RFC.
I believe the document is needed since it explains why it is not
beneficial to standardize two solutions for the same purpose. The
document also makes clear some of the aspects I was not aware of.
It is obvious
All,
I read this draft and support the publication as an informational RFC.
I believe the document is needed since it explains why it is not
beneficial to standardize two solutions for the same purpose. The
document also makes clear some of the aspects I was not aware of.
It is obvious that two
I oppose publication of this I-D in its present form.
The idea of having an I-D that says two OAM solutions will cost is fine, but
there are too many technical errors, especially in sections 4 and 5 (better as
Brian suggested as appendices), for it to go forward as it stands. Huub,
Malcolm and
Tom,
I don't think there is any objections to improving the document, the
most straight-forward way of doing this is the time-honored IETF
method supply the text!
/Loa
On 2011-10-05 10:01, t.petch wrote:
I oppose publication of this I-D in its present form.
The idea of having an I-D that
Tom
I would take issue with OSPF/ISIS and IPv4/IPv6.
Please can you expand a little on this.
Stewart
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- Original Message -
From: Loa Andersson l...@pi.nu
To: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt
(TheReasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM)
Original Message -
From: Stewart Bryant stbry...@cisco.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 2:01 PM
Tom
I would take issue with OSPF/ISIS and IPv4/IPv6.
Stewart
See my reply to Loa for the first.
For IPv4/IPv6, we are not talking about two solutions which are
