Can anyone (Greg in particular, as lead author) explain to me why this document creates an IANA registry for a value that isn't indicated in its header, and why the values in the header (e.g., Msg Type, flags) aren't defined?
I.e., this doesn't seem like it proposes much at all... Joe On 8/7/2016 7:02 PM, Greg Mirsky wrote: > But wouldn't it be simpler if all proposals used protocol type to > identify OAM payload? And if the protocol type is OAM, then after the > protocol header have OOAM Header, e.g. as proposed > in draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ooamdt-rtgwg-ooam-header-00>.
_______________________________________________ nvo3 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nvo3
