Re: [PWE3] OAM Msg Mapping Drafts

["Dinesh Mohan" <[e-mail]>]

I also support option a).

---
Dinesh

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of [e-mail]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:41 AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [PWE3] OAM Msg Mapping Drafts

Hi all,

I strongly support approach a.

For me it is the best approach to deliver an OAM solution for PW in a timely manner, and it is fully in line with the consensus that emerged during the last meeting.

Regards,

Philippe. 


-----Message d'origine-----
De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Stewart Bryant Envoyé : vendredi 25 juillet 2008 16:17 À : pwe3 Objet : [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
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3