Accepting OAM Configuration I-Ds

["Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>]

Hi,

Deborah and I have listened to the discussion about accepting the two OAM 
configuration I-Ds (draft-takacs-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-01.txt and 
draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-03.txt) as working group drafts.

We see reasonable consensus for adoption, but are aware that several people 
expressed a concern that this work would deprecate LSP Ping as a bootstrap 
mechanism for OAM in certain environments.

We believe that it is not the authors' intention to deprecate the use of LSP 
Ping in this way, and that it would not be wise to make such a change.

Therefore, we accept these two I-Ds as working group drafts, but request the 
authors to add to draft-takacs-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-01.txt to say:

The mechansim described in this document provides an additional option for 
bootstrapping OAM that is not intended to replace or deprecate the use of 
other OAM bootstrapping techniques such as LSP Ping [RFC4379]. The 
procedures specified in this document are intended only for use in 
environments where RSVP-TE signaling is already in use to set up the LSPs 
that are to be monitored using OAM.


We believe that this text goes some way to address the concerns raised and 
we note that the draft will be the property of the working group allowing 
additional changes to be made according to working group consensus.


Authors, please make the textual change and submit

draft-takacs-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-01.txt
as
draft-ietf-ccamp-oam-configuration-fwk-00.txt

and
draft-takacs-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-03.txt
as
draft-ietf-ccamp-rsvp-te-eth-oam-ext-00.txt


Thanks,
Adrian and Deborah