On 07/13/2011 09:57 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote:
Dear Erminio,
I'd point that the scope of G.8113.1, a.k.a G.tpoam in regard to CCM is
even more narrow then of the document being discussed. The G.8113.1
addresses only bi-directional co-routed LSP and has no model to handle
bi-directional associated LSP
ications, allows each
> >>pear to identify Tx problems.
> >>This OAM simplicity is the key for reliable fail finger pointing,
> performance reports and protection. Also to allow scaling, more
> implementation
> opportunities/manufacturers, which is valuable for
> >
Hi Erminio:
>Several service providers regarded this draft as not meeting their
>transport networks' needs.
E> This is a true statement: the solution in this draft is useless for many
MPLS- TP deployments.
The two statements do not necessarily follow.
What we established during discuss
Hi Erminio:
Two of the three document editors were present at SG15 plenary in February
where the comments originated. The revised meeting schedule resulted in a day
spent going through the document with the editors. IMO there were lots of
discussion and legitimate issues with the document ident
