Resolving last call comments on draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point

["Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

The IETF last call on draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point attracted a large
number of comments both during and after the last call period. Thanks to you all
for expressing your thoughts, and to Malcolm for working hard on a new revision
that seeks to address all of the concerns. The new revision is posted at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-04.txt
and you can see the changes at
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-04

The new revision was posted on April 10th and no-one has screamed in the
intervening period.

With this email I want to summarise the changes made and correlate them to the
points raised in the last call. Please excuse us for not responding to each
email separately, but there were very many emails with overlapping content.

I intend advancing this document to IESG evaluation and placing it on the
telechat on May 10th. That gives anyone who feels that their concerns were not
addressed the chance to speak up.

Thanks,
Adrian

---

Acronyms not found in RFC editor's common list

---

G.8113.1 has been moved to be a Normative Reference such that the document
cannot be published as an RFC (and so that the code point cannot be formally
allocated) until the referenced Recommendation has been approved for publication
by the ITU-T. If the ITU-T approves the Recommendation the code point will be
allocated; if not then no code point can be allocated.

---

Clarification of what can and cannot be carried on the requested code point, and
how to handle revisions of the Recommendation. Use RFC2119 language for this
purpose.

---

Clarify that the code point is for an alternative MPLS-TP OAM not for Ethernet
OAM carried over MPLS.

---

Fix terminology usage around ACh, ACH, G-ACh, etc.

---

Insert reference to RFC 5654

===

And a few changes explicitly not made...

Loa Andersson

OLD
"tools defined by the IETF [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis], that
are intended to meet the OAM functional requirements defined in
[RFC5860]."

NEW:
"tools described by the IETF [I-D.ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis], which
are used to meet the OAM functional requirements defined
in [RFC5860]."

Reason to not change: the tools are defined by the IETF. The citation provides
the index not the definitions.

---

Loa Andersson

Request to not mention the use of the Experimental code point. 

Text here has been modified, but reference to the potential of using an
Experimental G-ACh type has been retained since the author felt that this would
be a possible consequence of not allocating from the registry. There is no
comment about whether such usage would be good or bad, or whether it would be
within the spirit of the use of Experimental code points.