From: Florian-Daniel Otel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 11:44:26 +0200 (MEST)

Ben, Neil, Peter,

To me it seems that there are two sides of the story:

1) Signaling OAM packets. As Kireeti pointed out, seems that people
are unwilling to change the label semantics as they are now. So we are 
left to play around  Thomas proposal of using an additional OAM 
label, on top of or beanth the 'user-data' labels (is there a better term
for it?). 

2) Set of OAM operations. Neil and Peter already made some points
about it and there are prior discussions around the issues but i
haven't seen nothing concrete yet.

IMHO the first point should come _after_ the second i.e. defining the
OAM operation modes depend on what you're trying to do with it. So,
while Ben proposals sound about right, shouldn't they wait until 
after there is an consensus about the second point ?  In other words
trying to figure out how to signal OAM packets should come _after_ we
decide what we want the OAM functionality be ?

With kind regards,

Florian.