%% You should probably cite rfc8256 instead of this I-D. @techreport{ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-14, number = {draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm-14}, type = {Internet-Draft}, institution = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, publisher = {Internet Engineering Task Force}, note = {Work in Progress}, url = {https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-temporal-hitless-psm/14/}, author = {Alessandro D'Alessandro and Loa Andersson and Satoshi Ueno and Kaoru Arai and Yoshinori Koike}, title = {{Requirements for Hitless MPLS Path Segment Monitoring}}, pagetotal = 16, year = 2017, month = sep, day = 1, abstract = {One of the most important Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) capabilities for transport-network operation is fault localization. An in-service, on-demand path segment monitoring function of a transport path is indispensable, particularly when the service monitoring function is activated only between endpoints. However, the current segment monitoring approach defined for MPLS (including the MPLS Transport Profile (MPLS-TP)) in RFC 6371 "Operations, Administration, and Maintenance Framework for MPLS-Based Transport Networks" has drawbacks. This document provides an analysis of the existing MPLS-TP OAM mechanisms for the path segment monitoring and provides requirements to guide the development of new OAM tools to support Hitless Path Segment Monitoring (HPSM).}, }