Re: [mpls] R: RE: R: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt (Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed St

To the extent that this particular debate (that of the nature scope and success or failure of the liaison effort) has been going on for some time: * it's not going to be resolved. * rehashing the history of how we came to this point it advances what agenda? It would seems timely in the IETF

RE: [mpls] R: RE: R: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt (Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed St

Italo, The design team report (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/mpls-17/mpls-17_files/frame.htm), with Huub's name as an author, details a plan for MPLS-TP OAM which the MPLS WG has followed to this day. I think the report is compelling evidence that the claim that a packet