|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
IETF RFC 3429 (2002)
|
|
Title:
|
Assignment of the 'OAM Alert Label' for Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) Operation and Maintenance (OAM) Functions. This standard describes the assignment of one of the reserved label values defined in RFC 3032 (MPLS label stack encoding) to the 'Operation and Maintenance (OAM) Alert Label' that is used by user- plane Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture (MPLS) OAM functions for identification of MPLS OAM packets.
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Approved as standard.
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
G.8112 specifies the use of the label value in described in RFC3429.
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
Information on IPR issues regarding RFCs is available at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/. Specifically: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/search/?option=rfc_search&rfc_search=3429
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
Standard of long-standing and widespread use.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
Standard of long-standing and widespread use.
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
See item 8.
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[1] ITU-T Recommendation Y.1711, "OAM mechanism for MPLS networks", November 2002./
[2] Rosen, E., Tappan, D., Fedorkow, G., Rekhter, Y., Farinaccia, D., Li, T. and A. Conta, "MPLS label stack encoding", RFC 3032, January 2001./
[3] ITU-T recommendation Y.1710, "Requirements for OAM functionality for MPLS networks" July 2001./
[4] ITU-T Corrigendum 1 to Recommendation Y.1710, November 2002./
[5] Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A. and R. Callon, "Multiprotocol Label Switching Architecture", RFC 3031, January 2001.
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
ISOC/IETF:
|
|
|
9.1-9.6 Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8 Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
All RFCs are available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
