Re: CCAMP drafts for adoption

["Thomas D. Nadeau" <tom.nadeau@bt.com>]

    I agree with Nitin and do not support the adoption of these drafts.

    --Tom



On 12/2/08 4:35 PM, "Nitin Bahadur" <nitinb@juniper.net> wrote:
 
>>> draft-takacs-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-01.txt
>>> draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-03.txt
> 
> Do not support either of these.
> 
> From the oam-config-fwk draft:
>> A new useful application of RSVP-TE is OAM configuration
>> and control for transport networks.
> 
> LSP-ping was designed as an OAM mechansim for MPLS LSPs. Why do we need
> another mechanism? What are the limitations of lsp-ping that warrant
> this new mechanism?
> 
>> When RSVP-TE is used for LSP establishment it is desirable to bind
>> OAM setup to connection establishment signalling to avoid two
>> separate management/configuration steps
> 
> draft-ietf-bfd-mpls specifies how to use LSP-Ping for automatic setup of
> BFD-based OAM.
> We should go along the same path for Ethernet OAM.
> 
> Thanks
> Nitin
>