Re:CCAMP drafts for adoption

[longhao 48034 <lonho@huawei.com>]

Hi,

I support all of the three drafts to become WG drafts.

When I read the mailing discussion, some experts opposed the two I-Ds related to oam configuration:
 draft-takacs-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-01.txt
 draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-03.txt

My understanding is these two I-Ds are very useful for oam deployment. As you know, there are many things are needed to be preconfigured before you activate the oam function. This is actually a tough thing for users because the configuration involoves all the nodes on the lsp and so many parameters, e.g. MEG level, MEP ID, MD name , MA name ..... Some experts argues that this will lead to add more TLVs to RSVP-TE. However, if looking at the
 LSP setup, it is also a way to simplify the configuration. LSP setup and OAM configuration are similar thing. They are both the work of REVP-TE signaling. As this, I support the two I-Ds.

Thanks,
Hao


----- 原邮件 -----
发件人: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
日期: 星期二, 十二月 2日, 2008 下午5:03
主题: CCAMP drafts for adoption
收件人: ccamp@ops.ietf.org

> Hi,
> 
> Can you please express your opinion on the adoption of the 
> following three 
> drafts as WG drafts.
> 
> Thanks,
> Adrian
> 
> draft-takacs-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-01.txt
> draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-03.txt
> draft-bernstein-ccamp-wson-encode-01.txt (to become -rwa-encode-00)
> 
> Cheers,
> Adrian and Deborah 
> 
> 
> 
>