Hi,
Since this topic has diverged somewhat from the IETF last call on
draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations, I have changed the subject line.
2. For MEAD team's decision on OAM, it was recorded in
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-
analysis as below, but some MEAD members don't agree it, so they quit from
this
draft, you can see change from draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-00 to
draft-ietf-
mpls-tp-oam-analysis-02.
"This document reports the conclusions of the MPLS-TP design team
discussions on the MPLS-TP OAM tools at IETF75 and the guidelines
that were agreed. The guidelines refer to a set of existing OAM
tools that need to be enhanced to fully support the MPLS-TP OAM
requirements and identify new tools that need to be defined. The
organizational structure of the documents on MPLS-TP OAM tools was
also discussed and agreed at IETF75 and is described later in this
document."
3. For MEAD team's disband, you can see liaison send to itu recorded in TD218-
wp3 (2009-9).
You say that some members of the MEAD team did not agree with the recorded
decision of the team and quit from the draft. They might have done better to
disagree with the draft and to have discussed their concerns on the MPLS working
group mailing list. But the main point is that one of the key problems with the
MEAD team at this stage was that the discussions were private and did not allow
in a wider community opinion of the work. As was complained a number of times,
the MEAD team was established to kick-start the work, but was continuing to
develop the solutions outside the working group. In practice, had the MEAD team
continued any further it would have acted to exclude other participants - in
particular it would have prevented participants from the ITU-T from having their
fair input through the MPLS working group mailing list. I am sure you agree that
that would have been bad. Indeed, you complained in a previous email that
decisions had not been explored in public, so the implication is that you really
appreciate the closing of the team.
IETF participants will more easily find the liaison you refer to at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/593/
You will note, on reading this liaison, that the reasons given at the time were
to specifically to ensure rapid progress and open discussion.
This liaison should make it clear to you that the team was closed by the Area
Directors and the MPLS working group chair responsible for the team. The team
did not (as you suggest in a previous email) disband itself.
I am aware that there are comments that an IETF design team should not have been
shut down without consent from the ITU-T. I find, however, that when the ITU-T
agreed to develop MPLS-TP in cooperation with the IETF within the IETF and using
IETF process, it is only to be expected that IETF design teams are managed
according to normal IETF practice.
Thank you,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf