RE: MPLS OAM & the IETF

["Ash, Gerald R (Jerry), ALASO" <gash@att.com>]

Scott,

I prefer 2a (although option 1 is a close second).

Option 2a is what we were seeking in the BOF, and I agree with George that one standards body should own a core technology.  Presumable CCAMP (?) will be chartered to do the work, while the ITU can define extensions and bring them into the WG.

OTOH, option 1 appears to be a formalized agreement to split the tasks.  My concern is whether the required coordination will be there between ITU and IETF (as raised by Shahram, but not answered yet).

Any resolution that gets the requirements met with interoperable vendor implementations is acceptable IMO.

Jerry Ash

> 1 - split the tasks between the IETF and the ITU-T
> 2 - IETF produce standards track documents covering both areas
>  2a - trying to work with the ITU-T to produce common technology
>  2b - in competition with the ITU-T