Subject: [PWE3] ATM encapsulation draft - Deletion of section 7.4

From: Luca Martini <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:33:05 -0600

WG,

The authors of the ATM  encapsulation draft have agreed that we should 
delete section 7.4 "Defect Handling" to defer this topic to the more 
extensive treatment in the oam-message-mapping draft.

Please note that the ATM encapsulation draft is being edited by the rfc 
editor, so it will become rfc very shortly.
Please let me know if there is any strong objection to proceed with the 
deletion of section 7.4.

Thanks.
Luca

_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:47:21 -0400

Luca,

draft-ietf-pwe3-oam-msg-map-04 expired this past March and hasn't 
been updated since.  If deleting section 7.4 is going to hold up the 
ATM draft publication because the message map draft becomes a 
normative reference, then I'm not in favor of this change.

Cheers,
Andy

----------

At 10/5/2006 11:33 -0600, Luca Martini wrote:
>WG,
>
>The authors of the ATM  encapsulation draft have agreed that we 
>should delete section 7.4 "Defect Handling" to defer this topic to 
>the more extensive treatment in the oam-message-mapping draft.
>
>Please note that the ATM encapsulation draft is being edited by the 
>rfc editor, so it will become rfc very shortly.
>Please let me know if there is any strong objection to proceed with 
>the deletion of section 7.4.
>
>Thanks.
>Luca

---

From: "Thomas D. Nadeau" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 15:37:01 -0400

The co-authors are working on a refresh of
the draft, and it should be published next week.
We planned on asking for a WG LC of that version.

	--Tom

> been updated since.  If deleting section 7.4 is going to hold up  
> the ATM draft publication because the message map draft becomes a  
>> Please note that the ATM encapsulation draft is being edited by  
>> the rfc editor, so it will become rfc very shortly.
>> Please let me know if there is any strong objection to proceed  
>> with the deletion of section 7.4.
>>
>> Thanks.
>> Luca
>
>