Subject: Re: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate as a Directorate

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:41:14 -0400

At 11:49 AM 1/23/2012, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>Probably going beyond the name of the document is desirable - looking
>into the content for strings like 'performance metrics', 'performance
>monitoring', etc. could reveal things that are missed by just scanning
>the titles.

So, now that we've all had a chance to wade through docs in our
normal working areas:

Has anyone seen a draft we should be reviewing/considering?

Let us all know, and we'll take the next steps,
Al

---

From: Yaakov Stein <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:57:16 +0000

Other than draft-tempia-opsawg-p3m, which we have discussed before, 
I would suggest looking into the work proposed in MPLS on performance-based path selection 
(e.g., draft-atlas-mpls-te-express-path).

Had we been ready earlier, we would have taken a look at what became
RFC 6374 and 6375, but that is now water under the bridge.

I checked the OAM proposal in trill (draft-ietf-trill-rbridge-oam) 
and it is pure FM OAM, with no PM features. At least for now.

Y(J)S

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Al Morton
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 15:41
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [PMOL] Thoughts on how we operate as a Directorate

_______________________________________________
PMOL mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pmol

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:41:16 -0400

Any volunteers to review?

---

From: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:42:20 +0530

I can review both drafts by this weekend.

Regards
Vinayak