Hi all,
I concur with both parts of Dave's message :-( and support publication of the
draft.
I have an editorial/factual comment regarding Section 4.2 of the draft.
Let's begin with the fact that SAToP (i.e. RFC 4553) is not a Draft Standard,
it is a Proposed Standard RFC.
Further, I am not sure that the relationship between SAToP and other TDM PW
modes - CESoPSN (RFC 5086) and TDMoIP (RFC 5087) - is correctly described in
Section 4.2 of the draft. At least neither RFC 5086 not RFC 5087 contain any
explicit statements about SAToP as the "MUST to implement" protocol.
My 2c,
Sasha
________________________________________
From: mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of David Allan I [david(_dot_)i(_dot_)allan(_at_)ericsson(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 1:05 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; mpls(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: [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 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
This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information
which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have
received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax,
and then delete the original and all copies thereof.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf