ITU-T Beijing meeting [Was: Re: Last Call: draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC]

2011-10-10 Thread Adrian Farrel
Yuxia wrote: I also agree with Huub. As a consensus reached in Beijing meeting, mechanism using the tools defined for MPLS is a default tool set and another using the tools defined in G.8013/Y.1731 is an optional one. That is a an interesting and helpful statement. Obviously, most IETF

Re: ITU-T Beijing meeting [Was: Re: Last Call: draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC]

2011-10-10 Thread Malcolm . BETTS
Adrian, A similar statement is already included in draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn-01 5.3. LSP or PW originating in a PTN network and terminating in a PSN network In this case the PW (or LSP) originates (or terminates) in a PTN and terminates (or originates) in a PSN. The default OAM for

RE: ITU-T Beijing meeting [Was: Re: Last Call: draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC]

2011-10-10 Thread Adrian Farrel
Hello Malcolm, A similar statement is already included in draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn-01 The statement I found interesting was about consensus reached in an ITU-T meeting. I don't find this recorded in the Internet-Draft you pointed to. I asked whether there is a possibility that this message

Re: ITU-T Beijing meeting [Was: Re: Last Call: draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC]

2011-10-10 Thread Huub van Helvoort
Hello Adrian, You typed: Yuxia wrote: I also agree with Huub. As a consensus reached in Beijing meeting, mechanism using the tools defined for MPLS is a default tool set and another using the tools defined in G.8013/Y.1731 is an optional one. That is a an interesting and helpful