Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> wrote: > The MPLS working group is discussing sending a liaison to ITU-T SG11 in > response to their liaison (https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1869/) > originally targeted at OPSAWG.
I'm not an MPLS person, and I don't do ITU-T, but: > If you feel: > - OPSAWG should co-sign Yes. > - MPLS should butt out I think that your reply is appropriate. > The MPLS working group would like to thank you for sharing your requirements > as expressed in Q.3962. > Our current understanding of your requirements suggests that all or most of > your requirements can be addressed using existing IP/MPLS OAM tools. I'm leaving this part here for others that didn't read that far. Maybe list a few RFCs here? > We would welcome all experts to bring these requirements to the IETF's MPLS > working group with a view to working collaboratively on an Informational RFC > that describes how to deliver the function you want to see. Obviously, > should any lacunae be discovered during this process, the working group > would also be pleased to engage in additional protocol work to resolve any > issues. I didn't know what lacunae are. dictionary.com told me: noun An empty space or a missing part; a gap. -- Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg