RE: Announcement improvement (was: Re: Last Call: RFC 2050 to historic)

[GT RAMIREZ, Medel G.]

+1.
Likewise, if I may add; the summary of the progress specifically on the MPLS-TP
(i.e. Ratified / Pending / On-going / Expired).

Thanks
Medel
+

-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of "Martin 
J. D端rst"
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 5:32 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: The IESG; IETF-Announce
Subject: Announcement improvement (was: Re: Last Call: RFC 2050 to historic)

For the benefits of those (few and far between) IETF participants that haven't 
memorized all RFC numbers, it would be great if announcement such as the one 
below would contain a tiny bit more information about the document itself.

E.g. just having the title of the document in announcement would make it a lot 
easier to decide whether this warrants further attention or not, without 
additional lookup.

Many thanks in advance!

Regards,   Martin.

On 2013/07/11 6:39, The IESG wrote:
>
> The IESG has received a request from an individual participant to make 
> the following status changes:
>
> - RFC2050 from Best Current Practice to Historic
>
> The supporting document for this request can be found here:
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-2050-to-historic/
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits 
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the 
> ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-08-07. Exceptionally, comments may 
> be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the 
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> The affected document can be obtained via 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc2050/
>
> IESG discussion of this request can be tracked via 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-2050-to-historic/ballot/
>
>
>

This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of 
the individual or the entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from 
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the 
sender and delete this E-mail message immediately.

RE: IETF Diversity

[GT RAMIREZ, Medel G.]

Kathleen,
Thanks, well understood  indeed... I hear you.

Medel Ramirez
Globe Telecom, Inc.
Manila , Philippines.
+++


-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Moriarty, Kathleen
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 12:11 AM
To: Melinda Shore; Peter Saint-Andre
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: IETF Diversity

A little earlier in the thread, ways to improve things came up.  I
presented at an international conference in Bangkok this week on the
subject area covered by MILE.  While the focus was intended to be more
on how we can look at the problem space to make faster/more effective
progress, standards will enable some of those activities.  The second
half of the talk provided background on MILE, what we are trying to do
and gave the audience a general challenge as well as had specific
requests for help.  My last slide was on how to engage in the IETF.
Outreach and helping people understand how they can be effective within
the IETF may be useful for other WGs as well and could help improve
diversity.  I had 2 requests following the talk to give the same
presentation at other conferences and will likely do them to assist in
this area as well as to make faster progress (and hopefully drive people
to think about how to share information more effectively.  There are
many opportunities for people to help in this space.  

Best regards,
Kathleen

From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Melinda
Shore [melinda.sh...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 12:00 PM
To: Peter Saint-Andre
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF Diversity

On 6/19/13 7:56 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Why do you believe that my opinions are unexamined? I have been 
> thinking and reading about social, cultural, and personal change for a

> very long time.

You made an assertion that's at least a little ahistorical, you used it
to support an argument against organizational change, and when I
disagreed you went to the "Let's not talk about it" place.

Melinda

This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of 
the individual or the entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from 
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the 
sender and delete this E-mail message immediately.

RE: IETF Meeting in South America

[GT RAMIREZ, Medel G.]

Hi,

How about in the Philippines? I can show my homeland...

I can help facilitate the event, why don't you give it a try!

 

Regards

Medel

 

From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
I rob
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:17 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: IETF Meeting in South America

 

Hello,

 

I agree with the Idea of a IETF meeting in South America.

 

I think it is a way to let the people know about IETF (of course there
are other ways, but this is a good one), to give the possibility to
students/engineers with very good skills to get into the IETF, thinking
that it is going to be published in universities in advance, to give
time to students to enroll to a mailing list and read the drafts to be
presented.

 

Talking about my personal experience, I am pretty new in the IETF, but
since I have been involved, I teach my students (from Argentina)  about
it, I tell them, that they can participate, that is open, and I realize
that they didn't know it.   

 

I understand that usually the place is chosen based on the most of
participant origin, but I think a meeting in Latin America is a good
opportunity to give the possibility to people from that region to know
about the IETF. 

 

Kind Regards,

 

Ines Robles.

 

--

I would like to follow up on this proposal. Having a meeting in South
America scheduled two or three years in advance will let us engage
local organisations and individuals on a "project". We did several
activities in the region trying to encourage IETF participation, but
we're going to be much more effective if they're part of a plan with a
strong commitment (and effort) from the IETF community.

Since this opportunity was announced, there were several contacts and
proposals from different groups asking for additional information,
suggesting things to do, asking for details, etc. We now have a much
more fertile ground to do multiple things.

 Going further will also enrich the IETF work and community (making it
more international becomes a side effect). In this region there are
many engineers, software developers, people at Universities, etc. that
could provide new ideas and energy to the IETF.

Christian

 

 

This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of 
the individual or the entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from 
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the 
sender and delete this E-mail message immediately.

RE: Making the Tao a web page

[GT RAMIREZ, Medel G.]

Wish come true...

-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
SM
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 8:46 AM
To: Paul Hoffman
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: Making the Tao a web page

Hi Paul,
At 16:04 31-05-2012, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>needed. If there is consensus in the community to do this, I'm happy 
>to take on the HTMLizing and skip the RFCizing for this round.

I'll volunteer to help.

Regards,
-sm

P.S. To see what the Web 3.0 folks are up to, see 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/wiki  

This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of 
the individual or the entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from 
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the 
sender and delete this E-mail message immediately.

RE: FW: Last Call: (The Reasons forSelecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

[GT RAMIREZ, Medel G.]

-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
David Allan I
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 7:05 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org; m...@ietf.org
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: R: FW: Last
Call: (The Reasons
forSelecting 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
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of 
the individual or the entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from 
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the 
sender and delete this E-mail message immediately.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: voting system for future venues?

[GT RAMIREZ, Medel G.]

Ole,
We can actually arrange for a room block as long as we can guarantee
nth number of participants likewise room rates

Regards
Medel Ramirez
Globe Telecom, Inc
Manila, Philippines


-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Ole Jacobsen
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 10:33 PM
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: IETF-Discussion list
Subject: Re: voting system for future venues?


Michael,

I think we could expect a room block cost similar to that of APRICOT 
2009, but the dollar has tanked since then so even "cheap" places in
Asia like this aren't so cheap any longer. And, yes, it would be "hard 
go get to" for some value of hard. I wasn't proposing we go there.

As Nathaniel pointed out, some currencies have really risen against
the dollar. It isn't that long ago that the yen was well above 100
to the dollar (the mental calculation point), somewhere in the 110-120
range actually, but TODAY it is at 76-77 yen to the dollar.

So, a hotel room back then (the peak was July 2007 at 123 yen to the 
dollar), say at 15,000 yen would cost ~ $121. Today that same room, 
still at 15,000 yen will cost ~ $197, heck let's call it $200.

The Sing dollar and Oz dollar have done similar things, Canadian too 
:-)

Ole


Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
Skype: organdemo


On Thu, 25 Aug 2011, Michael Richardson wrote:

> 
> > "Ole" == Ole Jacobsen  writes:
> Ole> The Sofitel Manila is where APRICOT 2009 was held. A great
> Ole> venue, possibly even large enough to hold an IETF (I am not
> Ole> sure), *and* the rate (at the time) at 7,525 Pesos was pretty
> Ole> good. Today it is $177 which is still pretty good. The
question
> Ole> is: would the IETF go to the Philippines for a meeting. It's
> Ole> worth finding out.
> 
> I can't find a flight that gets me there in less than 2 days from
> Canada.  I tried for November.  Most transit US (a -0.5 for me), many
> connect in Tokyo or Hong Kong or Seoul... hmm.  travel on Friday is
> easier than Saturday.  The price is about the same as I paid for
Prague.
> The cheapest connects in Guam, which I've always wanted to do.
> 
> (Of course, the price to Tokyo or Hong Kong or Seoul will be higher..)
> 
> But, what will the price be, once we get our "block"?
> 
> -- 
> ]   He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!   |
firewalls  [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net
architect[
> ] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/
|device driver[
>Kyoto Plus: watch the video

>  then sign the petition. 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of 
the individual or the entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from 
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the 
sender and delete this E-mail message immediately.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: voting system for future venues?

[GT RAMIREZ, Medel G.]

Hi Ole,
If Sofitel Manila, will not be enough space for a 5 to 6 sessions
@ 200 seats at same time there is a larger spaces around that area,
Either SMX / Mall of Asia or our World Trade Center, Manila.

We welcome you to our beautiful country, Philippines.

Regards,
Medel
 

-Original Message-
From: Ole Jacobsen [mailto:o...@cisco.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 11:18 AM
To: GT RAMIREZ, Medel G.
Cc: Stephen Farrell; IETF-Discussion list; Keith Moore
Subject: RE: voting system for future venues?

Medel,

The Sofitel Manila is where APRICOT 2009 was held. A great venue, 
possibly even large enough to hold an IETF (I am not sure), *and*
the rate (at the time) at 7,525 Pesos was pretty good. Today it
is $177 which is still pretty good. The question is: would the IETF
go to the Philippines for a meeting. It's worth finding out.

Ole


Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher,  The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972   Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com  URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
Skype: organdemo


On Thu, 25 Aug 2011, GT RAMIREZ, Medel G. wrote:

> Hi,
> Likewise but
> I'm Medel Ramirez, working in a Telco here in the Philippines (Makati
> City).
> Have been following a lot of technical discussions; likewise in this
> matter, would like to extend a hand in this issue.
> For you know I have already hosted a lot of Technical Events and one
of
> the biggest was,
> 1) First Philippine IPv6 Forum last May 2008 at Sofitel Hotel, Manila,
> Philippines; which was attended by participants worldwide...
> 
> Regards,
> Medel Ramirez
> Globe Telecom, Inc
> Manila, Philippines
> 

This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of 
the individual or the entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from 
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the 
sender and delete this E-mail message immediately.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: voting system for future venues?

[GT RAMIREZ, Medel G.]

Hi,
Likewise but
I'm Medel Ramirez, working in a Telco here in the Philippines (Makati
City).
Have been following a lot of technical discussions; likewise in this
matter, would like to extend a hand in this issue.
For you know I have already hosted a lot of Technical Events and one of
the biggest was,
1) First Philippine IPv6 Forum last May 2008 at Sofitel Hotel, Manila,
Philippines; which was attended by participants worldwide...

Regards,
Medel Ramirez
Globe Telecom, Inc
Manila, Philippines

+++
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Ole Jacobsen
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:43 AM
To: Stephen Farrell
Cc: IETF-Discussion list; Keith Moore
Subject: Re: voting system for future venues?


I have been asked to post the following for someone who does not wish 
to be identified:

"I work for a large company that can afford to pay fairly
high room rates at the official HQ hotel. I'm willing to
do so as a way to help the IETF get free meeting rooms
and thereby keep the meeting fee low, reducing the burden
on those with limited budgets. I agree that IAOC should
ensure that there are inexpensive hotels nearby so that
those with a tight budget can save money."


Ole


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of 
the individual or the entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from 
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the 
sender and delete this E-mail message immediately.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Last Call: (Reducing the Standards Track to Two Maturity Levels) to BCP

[GT RAMIREZ, Medel G.]

Hi SM,
Pardon me;
1)Is there such thing as a "good enough" Criteria to handle this
concern?
2)Or as usual it passes "rough consensus" process?

Regards,
Medel


-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
SM
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 5:45 PM
To: Russ Housley
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call:
(Reducing the Standards Track
to Two Maturity Levels) to BCP

Hi Russ,
At 12:28 PM 8/3/2011, Russ Housley wrote:
>I am well aware of the implementation reports.  The premise here is 
>that the protocol specification is "good enough" there are at least 
>two interoperable implementations and the protocol is deployed 
>widely.  The implementation report would become optional.

One of the advantages of an implementation report is that it provides 
a statement about interoperability between two or more known 
implementations.  If there is any dispute about that claim, it can be 
resolved in a non-controversial way.  Determining whether a protocol 
is widely deployed is not always a clear-cut decision.

>People are not doing many implementation reports.  As you say above, 
>there are only about 75 of them.  How many protocols are documented 
>in RFCs?  That is a very low percentage in my view.

Yes, it's a very low percentage.  I don't have the figure for the 
number of protocols documented.  Given the low barrier for such 
reports, I would have expected to see more reports.  After all, if 
the RFC has been published, the protocol has been widely deployed, it 
should simply have been a matter of filing the short report.

 From draft-housley-two-maturity-levels-08:

"this document measures interoperability through widespread
deployment
 of multiple implementations from different code bases, thus
condensing
 the two separate metrics into one."

This change is expected to solve the problem.  I am not convinced 
that the metrics is the problem.

>So, I see the cost quite differently.  Most protocols are published 
>as Proposed Standards, and they are never advanced.  I'm seeking a 
>process where implementation and deployment experience actually 
>improves the protocol specifications.  Today, that rarely happens, 
>and when it does, the

Agreed.

I didn't find any incentive to inject implementation and deployment 
experience into the process.

>This is an argument for the status quo.  We have decades of 
>experience with that not working.  That is essentially an argument 
>for a single maturity level; that is how the process is really working
today.

I am not arguing for a single maturity level (the status quo).  I do 
not agree with the conclusion that the decades of stagnation is due 
to the three maturity level.

>This document is not about IESG review time, except for the 
>elimination of the requirement for annual reviews which are not done 
>anyway.  If that is what you get from the document, then I have done 
>a very poor job in writing it.  That is not the point at all.

I don't think that you did a poor job.  A three maturity level 
requires three IESG Evaluations.  A two maturity level requires two 
IESG Evaluations.  If more documents moved from Proposed Standard to 
the next level, it would obviously take more IESG review time.

I presume that the IESG will only use the following criteria for
advancement:

  - two independent interoperating implementations with widespread
deployment and successful operational experience

  - no errata against the specification

  - no unused features in the specification

And there won't be any DISCUSSes along the lines of:

   "I don't think the implementation reports are adequate for me to meet
the
requirements of 2026. It does not clearly identify what software 
was used or
show support of each of the individual options and features."

   "Examples througout the document make use of non-example domains."

   "The implementation report is woefully inadequate to document there
are
interoperable implementations of all the features from two different
code bases."

   "My Discuss was not addressed at all - I believe that the WG ignored
the
spirit of the implementation report requirement - my Discuss said
that
we should know that there are multiple implementations that have
handled the significant changes in the recycling of this Draft
Standard.
The group apparently refused to update its implementation report"

Regards,
-sm 

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of 
the individual or the entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from 
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If y

RE: Why the IESG needs to review everything...

[GT RAMIREZ, Medel G.]

Likewise...

-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 9:25 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: Why the IESG needs to review everything...

I believe we agree. 

On Jul 27, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>> My suggestion: Talk to the Nomcom if you think that certain ADs
treated you in an unfair way. 
> 
> Absolutely agreed. The NomCom needs an overview of this.


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of 
the individual or the entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from 
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the 
sender and delete this E-mail message immediately.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic (yet again)

[GT RAMIREZ, Medel G.]

I say "Vow"...

Medel
+
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Noel Chiappa
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:14 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Cc: j...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic (yet again)


> From: "t.petch"  

> I realise that ... you are seeking IETF consensus but what is that
> if the WG is dead set against it?

If the entire WG is against it, that's enough people to (IMO) prevent
IETF
consensus -> no IETF rough consensus for this statement.

Noel
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of 
the individual or the entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from 
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the 
sender and delete this E-mail message immediately.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: [mpls] R: RE: R: Re: LastCall: (Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect indicationfor MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Stan

[GT RAMIREZ, Medel G.]

Erminio Hi,

I belong to an Operator, I strongly agree with Greg.

 

Regards

Medel



From: mpls-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Greg Mirsky
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 10:50 AM
To: erminio.ottone...@libero.it
Cc: m...@ietf.org; IETF-Announce; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] R: RE: R: Re: LastCall:
 (Proactive Connectivity
Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect indicationfor MPLS
Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard

 

Dear Erminio,
even though I'm not an operator but I think that you've went bit too far
in your first generalization.
"Every generalization is wrong, including this one"

Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:32 PM, erminio.ottone...@libero.it
 wrote:

The technical concern raised during the WG poll has not been resolved so
the
history definetely matters.

Quoting RFC5921:

  There are thus two objectives for MPLS-TP:

  1.  To enable MPLS to be deployed in a transport network and operated
  in a similar manner to existing transport technologies.

  2.  To enable MPLS to support packet transport services with a
  similar degree of predictability to that found in existing
  transport networks.

Based on the extensive comments provided by transport operators and
ITU-T
community, the solution in this draft is useless in case 1.

The fact that the solution in this draft is not backward compatible with
existing IP/MPLS BFD implementations means that this solution is also
uselesee
in case 2.

Are there other undocumented use cases for MPLS-TP deployments?

>Messaggio originale
>Da: nurit.sprec...@nsn.com
>Data: 7-lug-2011 11.59
>A: , ,
,

"IETF-Announce"

>Cc: 
>Ogg: RE: [mpls] R: Re: LastCall:


(Proactive  ConnectivityVerification,Continuity Check and Remote
Defect

indicationfor   MPLSTransport   Profile) to Proposed Standard

>
>Erminio,
>I do not think the history is relevant for this specific discussion...
>Also I find it inappropriate to give statements with no justifications
>behind.
>You say: "the solution in this draft is useless for many MPLS-TP
>deployments.".  in order to seriously consider your comment, you have
to
>show why it is useless and which requirements are not satisfied.
>Otherwise you cannot expect anyone to refer to your point.
>Best regards,
>Nurit
>
>P.s. did you mean that the document is useless to available
non-standard
>deployments, e.g. T-MPLS?
>
>



___
mpls mailing list
m...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

 

This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of 
the individual or the entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from 
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the 
sender and delete this E-mail message immediately.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf