The MPLS WG Archive

[George Swallow <swallow@cisco.com>]

> While I think an IETF requirements statement for OAM is useful, I'd like to
> understand better the relationship of pursuing this to both the current
> charter (where my experience is that OAM is out of scope, witness the BOF at
> IETF 51), and the decision last summer to effectively delegate OAM beyond
> ping and traceroute to the ITU-T SG13 via publishing RFC 3429. 

Since we are both working on part of the problem and delegating
another part of the problem, it behooves us to have a clearly
articulated requirements document.  Since we've already ruled LSP ping
in scope, certainly requirements in this area must also be within
scope.

I also believe to do an effect of job of developing and/or delegating
OAM work (whether to the ITU, PPVPN, or PWE3) we should create a
framework document to cover the space in general.  I will be proposing
that we add such to our charter.  Whether that would lead to any
further protocol work in MPLS or elsewhere remains to be seen.

...George

==================================================================
George Swallow       Cisco Systems                  (978) 936-1398
                     250 Apollo Drive
                     Chelmsford, Ma 01824