On 2011-03-03 05:02, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mar 2, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
I want the whole community to be aware of the comments that I made to the
press over the past few days. Last Friday, the ITU-T Study Group 15 decided
to move forward with an OAM solution that is incompatible with the work
being done in the IETF MPLS WG. This is a breach of the agreement reached
by the IETF and the ITU-T, which is published in RFC 5317.
The ITU-T press release about their action is here:
http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2011/03.aspx
On behalf of the IETF, ISOC helped get the word out:
http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=3287
The press is starting to cover the story:
http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/ietf-slams-itu-standards-vote-22392
http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=8B71BD58-1A64-6A71-CE24B4B4EB59B200
And, the ITU-T made a second announcement today:
http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/newslog/Experts+Cast+Doubt+On+Jeopardize+Internet+Statement.aspx
With a very badly worded appeal to unnamed authority. Not a good response in
my opinion.
Not to mention including the canard that the IETF unilaterally disbanded
"its group assigned to work with ITU" in 2009. Others with more detailed
knowledge can explain exactly why this is, er, a lie.
I am very disturbed by this development. ITU/IETF agreements go back a long
way - I believe the first ones were signed off by Vint Cerf, so long ago
that I would need to look in my paper archives to find the date. In fifteen
years of my personal experience, including my own dealings with three different
heads of ITU-T while I was IAB Chair and then IETF Chair, they have never
reneged on an agreement before.
Brian Carpenter
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf