Adrian - Your proposed RFC Editor notes are excellent. I consider this Gen-ART review addressed. Thanks.
- Christian On Jul 16, 2009, Adrian Farrel wrote:
All, I propose the following RFC Editor note... Section 1 OLD Although both static and dynamic configuration of MPLS-TP transport paths (including Operations, Administration and Maintenance (OAM) and protection capabilities) is required by this document, it MUST be possible for operators to be able to completely operate (including OAM and protection capabilities) an MPLS-TP network in the absence of any control plane. NEW MPLS-TP transport paths may be established using static or dynamic configuration. It should be noted that the MPLS-TP network and its transport paths can always be operated fully (including OAM and protection capabilities) in the absence of any control plane. - - - - Section 2 OLD This document specifies the requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP). The requirements are for the behavior of the protocol mechanisms and procedures that constitute building blocks out of which the MPLS transport profile is constructed. That is, the requirements indicate what features are to be available in the MPLS toolkit for use by MPLS-TP. The requirements in this document do not describe what functions an MPLS-TP implementation supports. The purpose of this document is to identify the toolkit and any new protocol work that is required. NEW The MPLS-TP requirements set out in this section are for the behavior of the protocol mechanisms and procedures that constitute building blocks out of which the MPLS transport profile is constructed. That is, the requirements indicate what features are to be available in the MPLS toolkit for use by MPLS-TP. - - - - Please let me know if this is acceptable. A
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
