Hi, For your questions:
1) Both of the versions of G.8113.1 reach the technical and industry maturity, for there are only editorial and little modifications such as Global ICC based MEP/MIP formats. 2) In last SG15 plenary meeting in Dec, at the drafting session of Q10 on G.8113.1 and G.8113.2, both OAM solutions could not meet all the requirements of RFC5654 and RFC5860, you could check this in wd16_MPLS-TP_requirementsTable_G.8113.1and wd15r1_MPLS-TP_requirementsTable-G-8113-2-R1 in http://ifa.itu.int/t/2009/sg15/exchange/wp3/q10/2011-12-Geneva/. Li Fang from CATR 2012/3/14 Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) <[email protected]> > Hi,**** > > Which version of G.8113.1 has reached the technical and industry maturity? > Is it the one that was submitted to WTSA or is it the one that the ITU > worked on the December meeting? Or maybe it is the same document that the > ITU worked on in the December meeting and sent to WTSA? Can you please > clarify the point?**** > > You say that " the codepoint allocation from IETF should allow the ITU-T > to progress refinements to G.8113.1 such that it could satisfy all the > functional requirements defined in RFC 5860" – does it meant that the > matured version does not fully satisfy the requirements presented in RFC > 5860?**** > > Best regards,**** > > Nurit**** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf > Of *ext Fangyu Li > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:36 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: Last > Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an Associated > Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC > **** > > ** ** > > I support the allocation of an ACH codepoint to G.8113.1. **** > > **** > > For G.8113.1 had reached the technical and industry maturity to be > assigned a code point, the codepoint allocation from IETF should allow the > ITU-T to progress refinements to G.8113.1 such that it could satisfy all > the functional requirements defined in RFC 5860. **** > > **** > > -----????? ??????----- > ???: ext Ross Callon > ????: 13/03/2012, 19:27 > ??: Andrew G. Malis; Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) > ????: [email protected] > ????: RE: Last > Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>(Allocationof an > Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) to > Informational RFC > I agree that the allocation of a code point should be to a specific > version of 8113.1, and specifically should be to the final version that is > approved by the ITU-T (assuming that a final version of 8113.1 will be > approved by the ITU-T). This would imply that > draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point should contain a normative reference to > the final approved version of 8113.1.**** > > Given normal IETF processes, this implies that the final RFC resulting > from draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point could be published as soon as the > final version of 8113.1 is approved (with the understanding that there will > be a small normal delay between "approved" and "published" which gives time > for coordination). Given that the final version of 8113.1 might need to > reference the RFC resulting from draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point, a bit > of cooperation might be needed between editorial staff at the ITU and RFC > editorial staff, but I don't see why this should be a problem (I am sure > that they all have access to email).**** > > Ross**** > > **** >
