Subject: [mpls] R: Working group last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ring-protection

From: "Doolan, Paul (NSN - US/Irving)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 18:16:14 +0800

Hello Alessandro,

Apologies if you got his twice: Loa had to get me fix an email problem
this morning.

Nurit claimed that you (and others) did not "provide any indication nor
technical justification which requirements are not addressed and why do
you think they are not addressed....."
'Pointing out R100 of RFC5654' I guess counts as an 'indication' but
certainly does not provide justification or indicate how the requirement
is not addressed. So to be productive here you  need to be more
specific.

Since you provide the example please indicate precisely how you think
this proposed draft violates R100 of RFC5654 (inline below for those
unfamiliar).

Recovery techniques in a ring SHOULD be identical (or as similar
as possible) to those in general transport networks to simplify
implementation and operations.  However, this MUST NOT override
 any other requirement.

You might also want to look at RFC2119.

best regards,
pd

Paul Doolan