Re: [PWE3] OAM Msg Mapping Drafts

[Carlos Pignataro <[e-mail]>]

I'd like to point out that although this focus is on the eth-oam, there 
were additional updates to this "updated rev -07" version, including:

1. Update (rework/rewrite) of the L2TPv3 portions (as Luca mentioned
    with "L2TP message mapping is broken", those segments needed work). I
    made those edits (and would very much like to get feedback on them).
2. Small catch-up with some of the VCCV-related updates (e.g., there was
    no reference to VCCV-BFD, and no demarc from RFC5085, same)
3. Address 
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pwe3/current/msg09479.html>.
4. Others (standby state, et cetera).

As such, I'd like to request that these edits (the updates to non-eth 
portions) do not get lost in the process, and option a) seems to make 
these updates go away. As far as whether merging the eth-oam or keeping 
it in a separate document, I really do not have a preference. As long as 
the WG work is equally timely, complete and accurate, I have no 
preference as to which document contains it, and thus b) or c) would be 
fine for me.

Thanks,

--Carlos.

On 7/25/2008 10:16 AM, Stewart Bryant said the following:
> 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
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
> 

-- 
--Carlos Pignataro.
Escalation RTP - cisco Systems
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3