Kevin,
The 1b version of the layering shown on slide #22 (please, add slide numbers) is very close to what I envisioned for the layering.
One suggestion I have is to not show MA_CONTROL going through the OAM sublayer. The OAM sublayer has no notion of MA_CONTROL interface or the primitives.
Another suggestion is to show that a client, such as OAM client can sit on top of OAM sublayer, or on top of UMT sublayer (with appropriate protocol adapter), or it can span both OAM and UMT. In other words, OAM client is not aware how the OAM data was encapsulated for transmission, as OAMPDU or as UMTPDU. All OAM client knows is that it gets a properly-formed OAMPDU or OAM_CTRL indication PDU and it must generate a properly formed OAMPDU or OAM_CTRL request.
So, here is a picture that addresses both points, I think. Red text indicates the standard covering the respective blocks.
-Glen
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin A Noll [mailto:ieee.lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 1:20 PM
To: STDS-1904-2-TF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [1904.2 TF] January 2019 Consensus Building call - Call for Contributions
I have received no other requests for time on the call tomorrow.
Attached to this email are updates to the presentations that I sent out on 6-Jan-2019.
These are the only two presentations on the agenda for tomorrow.
—kan—
________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the STDS-1904-2-TF list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-1904-2-TF&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-1904-2-TF list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-1904-2-TF&A=1