Re: [PWE3] OAM Msg Mapping Drafts

Option a) 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pwe3-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pwe3-bounces@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Stewart Bryant
> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:17 AM
> To: pwe3
> Subject: [PWE3] OAM Msg Mapping Drafts
> 
> 
> We had hoped to resolve this face to face before the PWE3 
> meeting next week but that now looks unlikely. We are  
> concerned that we need to resolve this without the issue 
> absorbing all of the time in the WG meeting.
> 
> In order to gauge the consensus of the WG we would would like 
> to ask some questions.
> 
> When considering how to approach the message mapping document 
> issue, we think that the most important considerations are:
> 
> 1) That we deliver a high quality document that describes
>     the design to the implementors and users.
> 
> 2) That the Ethernet design is fully reviewed.
> 
> 3) That there is consistency between the approaches used
>     for the various OAM mappings.
> 
> 4) That the Ethernet design is delivered in an expedited
>     manner and the ATM and FR designs are also delivered
>     in a timely manner.
> 
> 
> We have three approaches:
> 
> a) LC and publish draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-06.txt, and
> 
>     Accept draft-mohan-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk as
>     a WG document
> 
> b) LC and publish draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-07.txt
>     (i.e. Luca's rewrite) but without  the Ethernet
>     section, and
> 
>     Accept draft-mohan-pwe3-mpls-eth-oam-iwk as a WG
>     document
> 
> c) Use publish draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-07.txt  as
>     the basis for ongoing work.
> 
> Before any document is sent to the IESG for publication we 
> will ensure contributions are appropriately acknowledged 
> through  editorship, authorship, & acknowledgments. So please 
> set any such issues aside and focus on the best document to 
> deliver to our users.
> 
> Please also set aside the poor etiquette that has taken 
> place, and  focus on  how best to deliver  the required 
> documentation to the community. On the basis of 
> considerations 1..4 above, which documentation approach, a, b 
> or c, do you consider most likely to achieve the goals of the WG?
> 
> 
> Stewart & Matthew
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pwe3 mailing list
> pwe3@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
pwe3@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3