Do you mean that ITU-T comments were discussed and resolution agreed during the
ITU-T meeting?
If this is the case, why the LS just provides the comments and not the agreed
resolution?
Why some ITU-T comments have been then rejected?
----Messaggio originale----
Da: david(_dot_)i(_dot_)allan(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com
Data: 6-lug-2011 19.35
A:
"erminio(_dot_)ottone_69(_at_)libero(_dot_)it"<erminio(_dot_)ottone_69(_at_)libero(_dot_)it>,
"loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu"
<loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu>, "Rui Costa"<RCosta(_at_)ptinovacao(_dot_)pt>
Cc: "mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"<mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>,
"ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org"<ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>, "IETF-
Announce"<ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Ogg: RE: [mpls] R: Re: Last Call:
<draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt>
(Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect
indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard
Hi Erminio:
Two of the three document editors were present at SG15 plenary in February
where the comments originated. The revised meeting schedule resulted in a day
spent going through the document with the editors. IMO there were lots of
discussion and legitimate issues with the document identified and corrected so
it was a useful session. The liaison of same was in many ways *after the
fact*.
Cheers
Dave
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf