ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [mpls] R: FW: LastCall: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (TheReasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) toInformational RFC

2011-10-06 12:36:55
Same here. 
I support publication of the draft.
Luyuan

-----Original Message-----
From: mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf
Of
John E Drake
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 7:11 AM
To: David Sinicrope; David Allan I
Cc: mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [mpls] R: FW: LastCall: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-
considerations-01.txt> (TheReasons for Selecting a Single Solution for
MPLS-TP OAM) toInformational RFC

As do I

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf
Of
David Sinicrope
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 7:11 PM
To: David Allan I
Cc: mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [mpls] R: FW: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-
considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution
for
MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

I concur with Dave's comment and support publication of the draft.
Dave



On Oct 5, 2011, at 7:06 PM, "David Allan I"
<david(_dot_)i(_dot_)allan(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com> wrote:

I think it is unfortunate that we are in a situation where such a
document has utility. But ultimately it does.

Therefore I support the publication of draft-sprecher...

D



MPLS Working Group,

Please be aware of the IETF last call as shown below. The
document
was
presented for publication as an individual RFC with IETF
consensus
and
AD sponsorship.

This draft is clearly close and relevant to the work you do, but
after
discussing with the chairs I came to the conclusion that it does
not
comment on the technical or process decisions of the MPLS working
groups, and it does not attempt to make any technical evaluations
or
definitions within the scope of the MPLS working group. It is
more
of
a philosophical analysis of the way the IETF approaches the "two
solutions" problem with special reference to MPLS-TP OAM.

Thus, I am accepting the document as AD Sponsored rather than
running
it through the MPLS working group. My reasoning is that the
working
group has got plenty to do working on technical issues without
being
diverted into wider IETF philosophy.

As an AD Sponsored I-D it is subject to a four week IETF last
call.
That is plenty of opportunity for everyone to comment and express
their views. Please send your comments to the IETF mailing list
as
described below, or (in exceptional circumstances) direct to the
IESG.

Thanks,
Adrian
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>