----- Original Message -----
From: "Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)"
<yaacov(_dot_)weingarten(_at_)nsn(_dot_)com>
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "t.petch" <daedulus(_at_)btconnect(_dot_)com>;
<adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>
Cc: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)"
<nurit(_dot_)sprecher(_at_)nsn(_dot_)com>
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 9:04 AM
Tom you wrote on 3 Dec: " I would commend to you the e-mail that Russ posted
here 30Nov2011 ... so claiming what is and is not part of MPLS-TP calls for some
thought."
I would suggest that you also read the following from the same e-mail from Russ
to Malcolm Johnson:
"(2) I do not see acknowledgement of the necessary changes to the content of
G.8113.1 that address my earlier comments. The Japanese document indicates that
the content to be revised to reflect that G.8113.1 is not included as part of
MPLS or MPLS-TP. I anticipate technical changes, not just the inclusion of a
statement that G.8113.1 is not part of MPLS or MPLS-TP."
Which makes me understand that in Russ's opinion, and certainly in the opinion
of many other IETF attendees, that your conclusion of "The deadline would appear
to be 12Jan2012 which Malcolm and Huub would appear to have provided us with the
wherewithall to meet." is incorrect at the moment
<tp>
Right, and in the .pdf referenced in that e-mail, I see
<quote>
From: Johnson, Malcolm Sent: 01 December 2011 10:27 To: 'Russ Housley' Subject:
RE: MPLS
Dear Russ
(1) I am pleased that we seem to have the title sorted.
(2) I attached a contribution which proposes amendments to the determined text
in COM15-R22. This includes the title change and makes changes to the
terminology throughout the document. What had previously been called "MPLS-TP
OAM" is now never referred to as such, but simply as "OAM" or "data-plane OAM".
As you can see there is a willingness to satisfy all the IETF concerns but if
there is still something else in the body of the draft Recommendation that
causes concern could you please specify what exactly it is so it can be
addressed?
(3) I am not aware of any delay from ITU side. If there is anything that needs
to be done from our side to expedite the last call so that the code point can be
assigned by 10 January please let me know.
Regards
Malcolm
</quote>
so if you see something the IETF is lacking, then we should raise that
forthwith. Reading the I-D, it seems to have the necessary information for an
allocation as called for in RFC4929, and it is then a question of cranking the
right handles in the IETF (we are not being asked to approve anything else, such
as G.8113.1:-).
Tom Petch
</tp
Best regards,
Yaacov Weingarten
Nokia Siemens Networks
Industry Environment, PTE
ph#: +972-9-775 1827
mob#: +972-54-220 0977
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf