The MPLS WG Archive

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@workhorse.fictitious.org>]

In message <FFFC48AEAA5F7447929F4F0D93FCC12D02B927D4@zcard031.ca.nortel.com>, "
David Allan" writes:
> Hi Curtis:
> 
> I wouldn't describe it as a ringing endorsement ;-). More a reflection of
> the schimsm that the MPLS WG was not going to reach any sort of consensus on
> OAM at the time as most folks considered it to be not required, did not
> necessarily like the solutions etc. etc. etc. Now this topic seems to have
> come forward to some degree and the question is what do we do.....
> 
> IMHO 1711 and 17fec-cv should be useful candidates. I understand some
> concerns with the dataplane, and it would be useful if some of those issues
> could be addressed. The key issue being primarily on how payload is
> identified. The PW PID is an example of how this can be addressed without
> fundamentally undoing the work, IMHO other options exist. 
> 
> cheers
> Dave


I agree that 1711 and 17fec-cv should be candidates.  However we are
at the framework stage and crafting the framework to describe those
conditions that impact a particular approach more difficult is not the
way this WG should approach the problem.

The framework draft should start with requirements independent of any
proposed solution and discuss how various solutions fit into the
requirement space, not how the requirement space fits into a paricular
solution.

Curtis