On 2011-03-03 05:02, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > On Mar 2, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Russ Housley wrote: > >> I want the whole community to be aware of the comments that I made to the >> press over the past few days. Last Friday, the ITU-T Study Group 15 decided >> to move forward with an OAM solution that is incompatible with the work >> being done in the IETF MPLS WG. This is a breach of the agreement reached >> by the IETF and the ITU-T, which is published in RFC 5317. >> >> The ITU-T press release about their action is here: >> http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2011/03.aspx >> >> On behalf of the IETF, ISOC helped get the word out: >> http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=3287 >> >> The press is starting to cover the story: >> http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/ietf-slams-itu-standards-vote-22392 >> http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=8B71BD58-1A64-6A71-CE24B4B4EB59B200 >> >> And, the ITU-T made a second announcement today: >> >> http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/newslog/Experts+Cast+Doubt+On+Jeopardize+Internet+Statement.aspx > > With a very badly worded appeal to unnamed authority. Not a good response in > my opinion.
Not to mention including the canard that the IETF unilaterally disbanded "its group assigned to work with ITU" in 2009. Others with more detailed knowledge can explain exactly why this is, er, a lie. I am very disturbed by this development. ITU/IETF agreements go back a long way - I believe the first ones were signed off by Vint Cerf, so long ago that I would need to look in my paper archives to find the date. In fifteen years of my personal experience, including my own dealings with three different heads of ITU-T while I was IAB Chair and then IETF Chair, they have never reneged on an agreement before. Brian Carpenter _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
