IMO it is a statement of principle going forward. As such it does not "fix" or
"make go away" the current situation, but it would be an IETF consensus
position on a way forward. And I agree with that position.
Lots of folks do proprietary deployments, squat on code points etc. That cannot
be "fixed" either, but I do not believe in rewarding it.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Rolf Winter [mailto:Rolf(_dot_)Winter(_at_)neclab(_dot_)eu]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 6:39 AM
To: David Allan I; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; mpls(_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
Dave,
could you be more precise about what you think the utility of this document is
in this particular situation. I mean, what will its effect be in the current
situation. What will change after this document has been published. It seems
everybody believes the "situation" will be resolved once this document receives
its RFC number. I cannot see that. Could you give me more detail?
Best,
Rolf
NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3
6BL | Registered in England 2832014
-----Original Message-----
From: mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:mpls-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf
Of David Allan I
Sent: Donnerstag, 6. Oktober 2011 01:05
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf