Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC on draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def

The liaison I saw -> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/876/  does have two paragraphs discussing vertical and horizontal management in more detail.  This was discussed with the commenter's and it was decided not to include the added complexity.  All of the other comments were basically editorial and handled during editing.  I can't find liaison/file994.pdf, so I'm not sure what else is a concern.

I believe this is considered an IETF matter now since the document does not specifically relate to MPLS-TP any longer.

Regards,
-scott.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of t.petch
> Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 6:41 AM
> To: opsawg@ietf.org; sob@harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC on draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def
> 
> We did get a liaison from the ITU-T on this I-D, file994.pdf, 
> most of which seems to have been rejected.  Is this correct?  
> I never saw any discussion of the proposed changes on mpls-tp 
> or OPSAWG lists, just the proposed changes did not get incorporated.
> 
> And is this I-D being liaised to the ITU-T now, as part of 
> the IETF-ITU-T JWT or is it being treated as an IETF matter only?
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@harvard.edu>
> To: <ietfc@btconnect.com>; <opsawg@ietf.org>; <sob@harvard.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 5:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC on draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def
> 
> 
> > >  I assume that this is still
> > > 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-de
> > > f-07.txt
> >
> > yup
> >
> > > How long have we got?
> >
> > sigh - should have said - two weeks (til feb 14)
> >
> > Scott
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
> 