> On 04 Jun 2015, at 07:26, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jun 3, 2015, at 6:24 PM, Ross Callon <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> >> >> Does this sound about right? >> > > I think the text you suggest is fine. But we haven't ever used the term "OAM" > before. I would like all the documentation to be consistent so would suggest > using "RLOC reach ability mechanisms”.
Hi Dino, I understand your point, but may be OAM is a more general term that covers the RLOC reachability case. yet, if it is fine with Ross I guess we can use “RLOC reachability”. ciao L. > > Dino
_______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
