Re: Proposed Liaison Response to SG11

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf-SWp7JaYWvAQV+D8aMU/[email protected]> Sun, 10 Mar 2024 14:52:48 -0400

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.opsawg,gmane.ietf.mpls
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Adrian Farrel <[email protected]> wrote:
    > The MPLS working group is discussing sending a liaison to ITU-T SG11 in
    > response to their liaison (https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1869/)
    > originally targeted at OPSAWG.

I'm not an MPLS person, and I don't do ITU-T, but:

    > If you feel:
    > - OPSAWG should co-sign

Yes.

    > - MPLS should butt out

I think that your reply is appropriate.

    > The MPLS working group would like to thank you for sharing your requirements
    > as expressed in Q.3962.

    > Our current understanding of your requirements suggests that all or most of
    > your requirements can be addressed using existing IP/MPLS OAM tools.

I'm leaving this part here for others that didn't read that far.
Maybe list a few RFCs here?

    > We would welcome all experts to bring these requirements to the IETF's MPLS
    > working group with a view to working collaboratively on an Informational RFC
    > that describes how to deliver the function you want to see. Obviously,
    > should any lacunae be discovered during this process, the working group
    > would also be pleased to engage in additional protocol work to resolve any
    > issues.

I didn't know what lacunae are.

dictionary.com told me: noun
An empty space or a missing part; a gap.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF-SWp7JaYWvAQV+D8aMU/[email protected]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 515 B)