Hi Neil,
yes, thanks I had great vacation(although the weather could have been better !), and I agree with you we need to understand the defect handling/OAM interworking issue clearer for the ATM/MPLS case.
I am still not so clear what means layer violation in this context, since in my understanding the layer network modeling does not specifically address interworked connections.
In my understanding this aspect is still open area of study and I hope we can clarify it in ITU-T functional modeling context. In any case I look forward to your drafts with John R, and we should also discuss in Japan meetings.
Regards,
Khalid
-----Original Message-----
From: neil.2.harrison@bt.com [mailto:neil.2.harrison@bt.com]
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 11:21 AM
To: Ahmad, Khalid [CAR:CS40:EXCH]; tdwalsh@lucent.com;
harford@atmware.com; pwe3@ietf.org
Cc: john.rutemiller@marconi.com
Subject: RE: [PWE3] Koleyni and Bocci drafts
Hi Khalid, see below (hope you had a nice holiday). regards, Neil
-----Original Message-----
From: Khalid Ahmad [mailto:kmad@nortelnetworks.com]
Sent: 21 June 2002 15:36
To: Walsh, Thomas D (Tom); 'Jim Harford'; pwe3@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [PWE3] Koleyni and Bocci drafts
Colleagues,
from the emails I have seen to this topic, I did not see any negative
comments to the Bocci and Koleyni drafts, and more importantly there have
been no technical issues raised.
NH=> Well, I have raised this point in the past, and will continue to so,
that the defect handling in *all* the drafts I have seen to date is either
inappropriate (ie layer violations or such) or (more usally) missing. So as
far as I am concerned they are all still not fit for purpose. Having said,
I am working though this with John Rutemiller and there should a draft soon
that is likely to get my/BT support.
<snipped to end NH>