[OPSAWG] Request for review and comments.

Balaji Venkat Venkataswami <balajivenkat@force10networks.com> Wed, 13 June 2012 05:02 UTC

From: Balaji Venkat Venkataswami <balajivenkat@force10networks.com>
To: "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:32:41 +0530
Thread-Topic: Request for review and comments.
Thread-Index: Ac1JIcL9NeaXG7fmTFKefEYU8dGJrw==
Message-ID: <5EC91DDA759C324DB62C5A5F7B4922193CC879C037@EXCH-CLUSTER-11.force10networks.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5EC91DDA759C324DB62C5A5F7B4922193CC879C037EXCHCLUSTER11_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "phoose@fb.com" <phoose@fb.com>
Subject: [OPSAWG] Request for review and comments.
Precedence: list

Dear all,

The following internet draft

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-janapath-opsawg-flowoam-req-00.txt

is available for review. Please feel free to review and comment on it.

Here is a brief background behind this draft.

A draft for Traceflow solution was earlier submitted to the intarea working group and brought for
consideration in the opsawg group as well in IETF83 in Paris.

The URL to the Traceflow solution draft which was presented in Paris was  as follows...

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-janapath-intarea-traceflow-00.txt

At the presentation (given by our colleague Shivakumar) there was consensus in the opsawg group that there should
be a split of the requirements for the framework for flow-oam and the solutions under this framework
with respect to the documents.

In light of this the new requirements draft titled in the first URL in this email was submitted to the opsawg group.

This requirements document is a first cut and we would like to get as many opinions as possible before
incorporating these comments in the draft.

thanks and regards,
balaji venkat

[OPSAWG] Request for review and comments. Balaji Venkat Venkataswami