Re: [CCAMP] [mpls] Questions on draft-vkst-mpls-tp-oam-id-mib-01

	Stewart,

	The question of whether or not to allow "configuration" via the OAM protocols (or protocol extensions) was something I raised several months ago in PWE3, although it was also discussed in MPLS as I recall in Taipei as well. It seems to have arisen again.   The conclusions in PWE3 were to allow configuration of only OAM-related things (i.e.: not allowing expansion of the protocols for general configuration). Presumably configuration via MIBs there is still okay. In MPLS I recall the chairs stating that configuration was a thing reserved for NetConf when the question of MIB-based configuration was raised for WG MIB drafts in general (and in particular WRT to the MPLS-TP MIBs).    Those positions seem slightly at odds with each other.  And now your answer now seems inconsistent with those as well.

	Can we get a single answer from the ADs/IESG on this that pertains to all MPLS-TP related work?

	--Tom

On Jan 3, 2012, at 1:02 PM, Stewart Bryant wrote:

> 
>> 2. Will this MIB be enhanced also to configure "*Y.1731 based OAM for MPLS-TP*"?
>> 
> Without prejudice to any decisions on Y.1731 and MPLS-TP.
> 
> Wouldn't such a MIB be a derivative of the Y.1731 MIB?
> 
> Stewart
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 