Subject: [mpls] R: Re: R: Draft: Response to Updated draft Recommendation G.tpoam [Ref 043.02]

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 13:55:51 +0100 (CET)

It is very unpolite and rude making such a statement after having failed to deliver what previously committed

----Messaggio originale----
Da: [email-masked]
Data: 14-gen-2011 0.07
A: "[email-masked]"<[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]"<[email-masked]>
Ogg: Re: [mpls] R: Draft: Response to Updated draft Recommendation G.tpoam [Ref 043.02]

Erminio,

I don't agree with your statement.  It is a statement that identifies that the ITU-T did not follow the JWT agreement between the IETF and the ITU-T, nor internal ITU-T and IETF processes.  It does not say that the IETF will not meet it's obligations under the JWT if the request is made the correct way.  It's not a "bugger off" it's a "please work with us in the manner previously agreed and respect our process" - is that too hard a request to make?

Chris

On 14Jan2011, at 09.56, [email-masked] wrote:

I do not support sending this LS in its current form.

The LS is currently stating that the IETF is not committed to deliver to ITU-T 
what it was promised in the JWT agreement.

What is the real concern the LS is trying to resolve? The fact that the 
document is not based on an IETF RFC?

----Messaggio originale----

Da: [email-masked]

Data: 10-gen-2011 11.56

A: "[email-masked]"<[email-masked]>

Ogg: [mpls] Draft: Response to Updated draft Recommendation G.tpoam [Ref 
043.02]

I propose to send the following Liaison Response to the ITU-T on Friday 

14th January and am posting it to the MPLS WG list for review.

=======

Response to Updated draft Recommendation G.tpoam [Ref 043.02]

From: IETF Liaison to ITU-T on MPLS [email-masked]

To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]

CC: Greg Jones, [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]

[email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]

[email-masked], [email-masked]

[email-masked], [email-masked]

[email-masked], [email-masked]

For Action

The MPLS Working Group notes that this document contains text describing 

MPLS-TP OAM protocols not designed and standardized using the IETF 

Standards process. Specifically it uses material from 

draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-06.

We wish to draw your attention to the status section of 

draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-06 which states:

"Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 

and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 

time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material 

or to cite them other than as "work in progress".

Please also note that since the draft filename starts with the prefix 

string "draft-bhh" this clearly identifies it to the reader as a 

document expressing the personal technical views of the authors and 

hence hence as a document that that does not have any acknowledged level 

of IETF consensus.

Since the text of draft Recommendation for G.tpoam is based on an 

MPLS-TP OAM protocol not designed within the IETF Standards Process this 

is a breach of the SG15 agreement with the IETF as published in Report 

of the first meeting of Working Party 3/15 Transport network structures 

(2009-2012) (Geneva, 1 – 12 December 2008) which can be found at 

http://www.itu.int/md/T09-SG15-R-0004/en

Please confirm that the ITU-T intends to continue with the joint work on 

MPLS-TP and that the ITU-T will align this recommendation with the IETF 

MPLS-TP OAM design before advancing this document through the ITU-T 

publication process.

The MPLS Working Group would also like to draw the attention of ITU-T 

SG15 to the IETF copyright rules. Please see 

http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/archive/IETF-Trust-License-Policy-
20091228.htm 

for further details.

Since this draft Recommendation contains text in which the ITU-T SG15 

has proposed making changes to IETF protocols without the approval of 

the IETF, the MPLS Working Group have referred this liaison to the IAB 

for their consideration.

=========

_______________________________________________

mpls mailing list

[email-masked]

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

---
李柯睿
Check my PGP key here:
https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc