Re: [sfc] Way forward for draft-ao-sfc-oam-return-path-specified

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

While that sounds reasonable, I (and I presume Jim) would like to hear 
from members of the working group.  The base document is adopted by the 
WG, so the WG owns change control.
Do people think adding the substantive comment from the otehr two 
referenced drafts would be helpful?

Thank you,
Joel

On 5/28/2021 7:56 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
> Dear Jim, Joel, et al.,
> 
> in the course of discussing draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam/>, Med 
> has pointed out that it seems useful to merge the substantive part of
> 
> draft-ao-sfc-oam-return-path-specified 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ao-sfc-oam-return-path-specified/>to 
> the draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam:
> 
> GIM>> I propose adding informational reference 
> to draft-ao-sfc-oam-return-path-specified as follows:
> 
> /[Med] I would prefer to have the content of 
> ao-sfc-oam-return-path-specified included in 
> draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam unless you are confident to progress that 
> I-D separately. It is up to you./
> 
> 
> Thinking of Med's suggestion, I've realized that the same step can be 
> considered for draft-ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency 
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ao-sfc-oam-path-consistency/>. 
> Both individual drafts extend SFC NSH Echo Request/Reply defined in 
> draft-ietf-sfc-multi-layer-oam and might be progressed independently. On 
> the other hand, mechanisms described in these individual drafts are 
> useful in an SFC NSH.
> 
> Much appreciate your suggestions, guidance.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Greg Mirsky
> 
> 
> Sr. Standardization Expert
> 预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline 
> Product R&D Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division
> 
> 
> 	
> E: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> www.zte.com.cn <http://www.zte.com.cn/>
>