----- Original Message -----
From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley(_at_)avaya(_dot_)com>
To: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)"
<nurit(_dot_)sprecher(_at_)nsn(_dot_)com>; "Huubvan
Helvoort" <huubatwork(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>; "Brian E Carpenter"
<brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Cc: "IETF" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 4:09 PM
Given the stiff formality of many of the messages on this topic, and the
absence of
description of who did what and why, I suspect the problem is some sort of a
split
regarding what approach (or which particular solution) should be taken in OAM
for
MPLS. And that the two factions were probably backed by different commercial
interests.
And that one faction had the upper hand within the IETF and the other faction
had
the upper hand within the ITU. The former committee was to provide the ITU
faction
with an official or de-facto veto power over the IETF output, so that the ITU
faction's
agreement would be required for "IETF consensus". Eventually, the IETF
faction got sick
of the fact that they weren't going to convert the ITU faction to their
solution, so the
veto arrangement was summarily terminated from the IETF side, and now the IETF
faction
can reach "consensus".
That is a very perceptive observation as a study of the e-mails contained in
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg05612.html
show, especially that of Jing Ruiquan (draft-bhh and Y.1731 being the basis of
the favoured ITU-T solution now presented in G.tpoam).
Tom Petch
So we will get two standards, one from the IETF and one from the ITU, and the
winner
will be determined in the marketplace. "The great thing about standards is
that there
are so many to choose from!"
Dale
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf