Re: [mpls-tp] Status of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv

Oh, and the base construct for ACH TLVs is provided in RFC 5586.
Retiring the ACH TLV I-D simply reflected that we could not find any "generic"
TLVs to define.

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Stewart Bryant
> Sent: 11 November 2010 02:09
> To: mpls-tp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] Status of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv
> 
> Malcolm
> 
> Note 1 below accords with my recollection of the situation.
> 
> There are some drafts that seem to have incorporated the ACH TLV, but my
> understanding accords with the note below. The h/w designers (in a
> number of companies) have said that they would find them difficult and
> thus ACH TLV should be dropped from those drafts.
> 
> - Stewart
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/11/2010 01:54, Malcolm.BETTS@zte.com.cn wrote:
> >
> > I am confused by the statement that we need to discuss the status of
> > draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlvon the list.
> >
> > During discussion late August/early September in the context of the
> > RFC vs ITU Recommendations dependancy table the following statement
> > was made:
> >
> > 1. draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv
> >    This draft has expired and we do not intend to keep it
> >    updated, instead definitions of TLVs for the associated
> >    channel will be defined in the appropriate specification.
> >    It is also not referenced by G.7712
> >
> > Therefore the draft was removed from the dependance table.
> >
> > Has the status changed?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Malcolm
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpls-tp mailing list
> > mpls-tp@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
> 
> 
> --
> For corporate legal information go to:
> 
> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls-tp mailing list
> mpls-tp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp