The MPLS WG Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS WG Archive>month:2003-Nov> msg00135



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

on the mpls oam framework

  • From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <tnadeau@cisco.com>
  • Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:58:31 -0500
  • Cc: "'David Allan'" <dallan@nortelnetworks.com>, <mpls@UU.NET>
  • Importance: Normal
  • Organization: Cisco Systems, inc.


>If we don't document OAM issues with MPLS in the OAM framework 
>document where do they get documented? 

	Peter,

	No one is arguing that you should not have your
say in documenting your issues with MPLS. It has been
suggested numerous times now that this be put into
an informational draft.  

	--Tom

	
>I think the precedent for discussing Issues with MPLS in MPLS 
>WG framework documents is established in RFC3353.
>
>Regards the "*practical*" point I can see why the MPLS WG has 
>problems with 
>the top down nature of draft-allan-mpls-oam-frmwk-05.txt. 
>Perhaps the usual 
>modus operandi of documenting implementations and waiting for 
>customers to
>request features to fix operational problems works much better?
>
>Peter.
>
>> 
>> Hi Dave,
>> 
>> >
>> > BTW, would be nice to get some other opinions, IMHO this is rather
>> > fundamental....
>> >
>> 
>> To reiterate what has already been said on this thread. A MPLS OAM
>> framework document must a) Follow the MPLS architecture and 
>b) Discuss
>> an OAM framework that concerns *practical* problems seen in 
>MPLS deployments.
>> 
>> If folks have issues with MPLS architecture/usage, it should 
>be documented
>> elsewhere, not in the OAM framework document.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> rahul
>> 
>> 
>> > cheers
>> > Dave
>> >
>> >
>> 
>
>
>