Hi Joe, indeed, I'll continue working on the drafts. Greatly appreciate technical comments and welcome contributions by new authors.
Regards, Greg On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Joe Touch <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
