Re: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
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. Regards Marshall > > I expect that there will be more press coverage of this unfortunate situation. > > Thanks, > Russ > > > ___ > 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
Re: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
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
Re: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
Hello Brian, You wrote: 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. Here are some facts: === I was member of the MEAD team. A meeting of the MEAD team was scheduled to meet in Munich 12-14 October 2009. It was scheduled right after an ITU-T SG15 plenary meeting (September 28 - October 9) because MEAD team members attended that meeting too. On Friday October 2nd an agenda was distributed for the MEAD team for the meeting in Munich on the MEAD team list m...@ietf.org. On Monday October 5th an email was sent to m...@ietf.org announcing the disbanding of the MEAD team, and that the meeting in Munich should not be considered a MEAD team meeting. The decision to disband the MEAD team was liaised to the ITU-T on the same day (October 5). Do I need to say more. Regards, Huub. -- * 我爱外点一七三一 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
Huub, Good that you mention that you were part of the design team! That is correct. You were also part of the team that worked in the face-to-face MEAD team meeting in Stockholm, July 2009, on the design and the technical direction for OAM in MPLS-TP. You were part of the team that presented the outcome of the MEAD team meeting and their recommendations to the MPLS WG in Stockholm. The IETF has started working on the solution based on these recommendations! See the authors in http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/mpls-17/mpls-17_files/frame.htm. Nurit -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Huub van Helvoort Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 11:38 AM To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: IETF Subject: Re: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS Hello Brian, You wrote: > 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. Here are some facts: === I was member of the MEAD team. A meeting of the MEAD team was scheduled to meet in Munich 12-14 October 2009. It was scheduled right after an ITU-T SG15 plenary meeting (September 28 - October 9) because MEAD team members attended that meeting too. On Friday October 2nd an agenda was distributed for the MEAD team for the meeting in Munich on the MEAD team list m...@ietf.org. On Monday October 5th an email was sent to m...@ietf.org announcing the disbanding of the MEAD team, and that the meeting in Munich should not be considered a MEAD team meeting. The decision to disband the MEAD team was liaised to the ITU-T on the same day (October 5). Do I need to say more. Regards, Huub. -- * 我爱外点一七三一 ___ 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
Re: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
Nurit: >> 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. > > Here are some facts: > === > I was member of the MEAD team. > A meeting of the MEAD team was scheduled to meet in Munich > 12-14 October 2009. It was scheduled right after an ITU-T > SG15 plenary meeting (September 28 - October 9) because > MEAD team members attended that meeting too. > > On Friday October 2nd an agenda was distributed for the MEAD > team for the meeting in Munich on the MEAD team list m...@ietf.org. > On Monday October 5th an email was sent to m...@ietf.org > announcing the disbanding of the MEAD team, and that the > meeting in Munich should not be considered a MEAD team meeting. > > The decision to disband the MEAD team was liaised to the ITU-T > on the same day (October 5). > > Do I need to say more. It does not sound like the shutdown of the MEAD team was smooth. However, the closure of a design team when their output is being handled by a working group is quite normal. Russ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
On 2011-03-04 06:51, Russ Housley wrote: > Nurit: > >>> 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. >> Here are some facts: >> === >> I was member of the MEAD team. >> A meeting of the MEAD team was scheduled to meet in Munich >> 12-14 October 2009. It was scheduled right after an ITU-T >> SG15 plenary meeting (September 28 - October 9) because >> MEAD team members attended that meeting too. >> >> On Friday October 2nd an agenda was distributed for the MEAD >> team for the meeting in Munich on the MEAD team list m...@ietf.org. >> On Monday October 5th an email was sent to m...@ietf.org >> announcing the disbanding of the MEAD team, and that the >> meeting in Munich should not be considered a MEAD team meeting. >> >> The decision to disband the MEAD team was liaised to the ITU-T >> on the same day (October 5). >> >> Do I need to say more. > > It does not sound like the shutdown of the MEAD team was smooth. However, > the closure of a design team when their output is being handled by a working > group is quite normal. That's the point. A design team is always a short term mechanism and once it reports back to the WG, it closes down. Not having been personally involved, I can't judge whether the process was clear to those involved, especially people with more experience in ITU-T than in the IETF. Just so we are all talking about the same thing, here is the official description from BCP 25 (RFC 2418): "6.5. Design teams It is often useful, and perhaps inevitable, for a sub-group of a working group to develop a proposal to solve a particular problem. Such a sub-group is called a design team. In order for a design team to remain small and agile, it is acceptable to have closed membership and private meetings. Design teams may range from an informal chat between people in a hallway to a formal set of expert volunteers that the WG chair or AD appoints to attack a controversial problem. The output of a design team is always subject to approval, rejection or modification by the WG as a whole." In other words, what counts in the IETF process is the WG consensus, not the design team consensus. There are cases where the WG refuses or significantly changes the design team proposal; RFC 3246 and RFC 3248 make a good example. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
On Thu, 3 Mar 2011, Russ Housley wrote: > It does not sound like the shutdown of the MEAD team was smooth. > However, the closure of a design team when their output is being handled > by a working group is quite normal. >From following this thread, it sounds like the wrong IETF organization unit was used to interface to the ITU? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
Hi, I think we should be sad, though, that Huub's feelings were hurt when the team was disbanded. Here is the liaison to the ITU describing the disbanding of the design team: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/593/. Interestingly, I can't find a reply from the ITU. This implies they didn't consider it important at the time. The design team report (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/mpls-17/mpls-17_files/frame.htm), with Huub's name as an author, details a plan for MPLS-TP OAM which the MPLS WG has followed to this day. I think the report is compelling evidence that the claim that a packet transport network is an MPLS application that intrinsically requires a different OAM solution is simply a lame ex post facto attempt to justify the ITU's abrogation of the agreement with the IETF (TD07 (WP3/SG15) from December 2008 sourced by SG15): "The ITU-T accepts these recommendations and states that any extensions to MPLS technology will be progressed via the IETF standards process using the procedures defined in RFC 4929 (Change Process for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocols and Procedures). Experts from the ITU-T will assist the IETF in the development of RFCs that describe the transport extensions by providing input to and review of the drafts as they are progressed via the IETF standards process.. The ITU-T will develop new or revised Recommendations that will allow IETF MPLS-TP to be integrated into the transport network including integration with the existing equipment, and operations infrastructure. These Recommendations will make normative references to the base IETF MPLS-TP technology and will be developed with input from and review by experts from the IETF to ensure consistency with MPLS-TP... The ITU-T has accepted the proposals from the JWT and we look forward to continuing the cooperative development of IETF MPLS to address the needs of the transport network. We also believe that this resolution will fulfil the mutual goal of improve the functionality of the internet and transport networks and guaranteeing complete interoperability and architectural soundness." Thanks, John Sent from my iPhone > -Original Message- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Brian E Carpenter > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 12:05 PM > To: Russ Housley > Cc: IETF > Subject: Re: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS > > On 2011-03-04 06:51, Russ Housley wrote: > > Nurit: > > > >>> 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. > >> Here are some facts: > >> === > >> I was member of the MEAD team. > >> A meeting of the MEAD team was scheduled to meet in Munich > >> 12-14 October 2009. It was scheduled right after an ITU-T > >> SG15 plenary meeting (September 28 - October 9) because > >> MEAD team members attended that meeting too. > >> > >> On Friday October 2nd an agenda was distributed for the MEAD > >> team for the meeting in Munich on the MEAD team list m...@ietf.org. > >> On Monday October 5th an email was sent to m...@ietf.org > >> announcing the disbanding of the MEAD team, and that the > >> meeting in Munich should not be considered a MEAD team meeting. > >> > >> The decision to disband the MEAD team was liaised to the ITU-T > >> on the same day (October 5). > >> > >> Do I need to say more. > > > > It does not sound like the shutdown of the MEAD team was smooth. > However, the closure of a design team when their output is being > handled by a working group is quite normal. > > That's the point. A design team is always a short term mechanism and > once it > reports back to the WG, it closes down. Not having been personally > involved, I can't judge whether the process was clear to those > involved, > especially people with more experience in ITU-T than in the IETF. > > Just so we are all talking about the same thing, here is the official > description from BCP 25 (RFC 2418): > > "6.5. Design teams > >It is often useful, and perhaps inevitable, for a sub-group of a >working group to develop a proposal to solve a particular problem. >Such a sub-group is called a design team. In order for a design > team >to remain small and agile, it is acceptable to have closed > membership >and private meetings. Design teams may range from an informal chat >between people in a hallway to a formal set of ex
RE: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
> From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org On Behalf Of Huub van Helvoort > > On Friday October 2nd an agenda was distributed for the MEAD > team for the meeting in Munich on the MEAD team list m...@ietf.org. > On Monday October 5th an email was sent to m...@ietf.org > announcing the disbanding of the MEAD team, and that the > meeting in Munich should not be considered a MEAD team meeting. > > The decision to disband the MEAD team was liaised to the ITU-T > on the same day (October 5). > > Do I need to say more. Uh, yes. There are three statements, all of which are in the passive voice; they describe actions that were taken without describing what persons took the actions and on what authority. At this distance, I'm not sure that it matters, but if you are trying to enlighten those of us who were not involved in these events, leaving out all the *names* and even *organizational roles* makes everything obscure. Dale ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
I have been on several design teams over the years, such as one that produced the MPLS Architecture (RFC3031), and a different one that produced the L3VPN Framework Document (RFC4110). In each case the design team was ended when an early draft of the document had been produced and submitted to the working group. Once an Internet Draft is accepted as a WG document, then the document "belongs" to the WG, in the sense that the document gets updated based on WG consensus. In fact, in the rare situation that a document author refuses to make changes to a WG document in violation of clear WG consensus, then the WG chairs have the authority to remove the author and put in different authors. This is just normal IETF process. Thus closing a design team when its work has been completed (which means that an initial draft has been submitted to the WG) is normal IETF process. The work continues in the WG (as happened in this case). Ross -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John E Drake Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 10:01 AM To: Brian E Carpenter; Russ Housley Cc: IETF Subject: RE: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS Hi, I think we should be sad, though, that Huub's feelings were hurt when the team was disbanded. Here is the liaison to the ITU describing the disbanding of the design team: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/593/. Interestingly, I can't find a reply from the ITU. This implies they didn't consider it important at the time. The design team report (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/mpls-17/mpls-17_files/frame.htm), with Huub's name as an author, details a plan for MPLS-TP OAM which the MPLS WG has followed to this day. I think the report is compelling evidence that the claim that a packet transport network is an MPLS application that intrinsically requires a different OAM solution is simply a lame ex post facto attempt to justify the ITU's abrogation of the agreement with the IETF (TD07 (WP3/SG15) from December 2008 sourced by SG15): "The ITU-T accepts these recommendations and states that any extensions to MPLS technology will be progressed via the IETF standards process using the procedures defined in RFC 4929 (Change Process for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocols and Procedures). Experts from the ITU-T will assist the IETF in the development of RFCs that describe the transport extensions by providing input to and review of the drafts as they are progressed via the IETF standards process.. The ITU-T will develop new or revised Recommendations that will allow IETF MPLS-TP to be integrated into the transport network including integration with the existing equipment, and operations infrastructure. These Recommendations will make normative references to the base IETF MPLS-TP technology and will be developed with input from and review by experts from the IETF to ensure consistency with MPLS-TP... The ITU-T has accepted the proposals from the JWT and we look forward to continuing the cooperative development of IETF MPLS to address the needs of the transport network. We also believe that this resolution will fulfil the mutual goal of improve the functionality of the internet and transport networks and guaranteeing complete interoperability and architectural soundness." Thanks, John Sent from my iPhone > -Original Message- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Brian E Carpenter > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 12:05 PM > To: Russ Housley > Cc: IETF > Subject: Re: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS > > On 2011-03-04 06:51, Russ Housley wrote: > > Nurit: > > > >>> 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. > >> Here are some facts: > >> === > >> I was member of the MEAD team. > >> A meeting of the MEAD team was scheduled to meet in Munich > >> 12-14 October 2009. It was scheduled right after an ITU-T > >> SG15 plenary meeting (September 28 - October 9) because > >> MEAD team members attended that meeting too. > >> > >> On Friday October 2nd an agenda was distributed for the MEAD > >> team for the meeting in Munich on the MEAD team list m...@ietf.org. > >> On Monday October 5th an email was sent to m...@ietf.org > >> announcing the disbanding of the MEAD team, and that the > >> meeting in Munich should not be considered a MEAD team meeting. > >> > >> The decision to disband the MEAD team was liaised to the ITU-T > >> on the
RE: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
Hello Dale, > > On Friday October 2nd an agenda was distributed for the MEAD > > team for the meeting in Munich on the MEAD team list m...@ietf.org. > > On Monday October 5th an email was sent to m...@ietf.org > > announcing the disbanding of the MEAD team, and that the > > meeting in Munich should not be considered a MEAD team meeting. > > > > The decision to disband the MEAD team was liaised to the ITU-T > > on the same day (October 5). > > > > Do I need to say more. > > Uh, yes. There are three statements, all of which are in the passive > voice; they describe actions that were taken without describing what > persons took the actions and on what authority. At this distance, I'm > not sure that it matters, but if you are trying to enlighten those of > us who were not involved in these events, leaving out all the *names* > and even *organizational roles* makes everything obscure. Naming names... The agenda for the MEAD Team meeting was distributed by the chair of the MEAD team, Loa Andersson. The team was closed by the responsible AD (me) in consultation with the team chair and my co-AD. The liaison (which you can find in the IETF liaison repository, or direct at https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/593) was sent by me. Please note that closing a DT opens the work up to wider participation which addressed a number of private gripes I had received about participation in the MPLS-TP project. But also note that the main reason for closing the team was that it had completed on its charter. The liaison makes these points clearly, I think. Thanks, Adrian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
- Original Message - From: "Ross Callon" To: "John E Drake" ; "Brian E Carpenter" ; "Russ Housley" Cc: "IETF" Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 6:28 PM > I have been on several design teams over the years, such as one that produced the MPLS Architecture (RFC3031), and a different one that produced the L3VPN Framework Document (RFC4110). In each case the design team was ended when an early draft of the document had been produced and submitted to the working group. > > Once an Internet Draft is accepted as a WG document, then the document "belongs" to the WG, in the sense that the document gets updated based on WG consensus. In fact, in the rare situation that a document author refuses to make changes to a WG document in violation of clear WG consensus, then the WG chairs have the authority to remove the author and put in different authors. This is just normal IETF process. > > Thus closing a design team when its work has been completed (which means that an initial draft has been submitted to the WG) is normal IETF process. The work continues in the WG (as happened in this case). I think it misleading to call MEAD a Design Team (whatever the acronym stands for). As described in, e.g., draft-andersson-mpls-tp-process " o MEAD team (MPLS Interoperability Design Team): a temporary team with participants with experience of standards development for MPLS and transport networks. The MEAD team is chartered to coordinate the development of MPLS-TP within the IETF and to coordinate the cooperation between the IETF and the ITU-T" which goes on to say " o MPLS-TP document - the following documents count as MPLS-TP documents: * Internet Drafts that are coordinated by the MEAD team. ." and " Once a document has become a Working Group document, consensus is decided by the WG chairs and the MEAD team chair jointly." MPLS-TP modifies the IETF processes to give a greater say to ITU-T in such matters as comments, consensus and last calls so it matters what constitutes a MPLS-TP document, to which one answer is whatever MEAD considers to be an MPLS-TP document. (Those not so considered could then go into an IETF Working Group which followed regular IETF processes). Coming with an IETF background, I found this an abomination and was relieved when MEAD disappeared. That said, the issue at hand is not, IMO, the MEAD team. It is the standing in the IETF and in the ITU-T of draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-06 Those familiar with IETF processes will know from its name the standing of this I-D within the IETF in general, and in MPLS in particular. Those not familiar have been enlightened by the recent, clear and careful liaisons of Stewart Bryant to the ITU-T. This is what the ITU-T seem reluctant to accept. The discussion of the merit of the approach in this draft has been just as energetic since MEAD was disbanded as ever it was. Tom Petch > Ross > > -Original Message- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John E Drake > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 10:01 AM > To: Brian E Carpenter; Russ Housley > Cc: IETF > Subject: RE: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS > > Hi, > > I think we should be sad, though, that Huub's feelings were hurt when the team was disbanded. > > Here is the liaison to the ITU describing the disbanding of the design team: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/593/. Interestingly, I can't find a reply from the ITU. This implies they didn't consider it important at the time. > > The design team report (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/75/slides/mpls-17/mpls-17_files/frame.htm), with Huub's name as an author, details a plan for MPLS-TP OAM which the MPLS WG has followed to this day. I think the report is compelling evidence that the claim that a packet transport network is an MPLS application that intrinsically requires a different OAM solution is simply a lame ex post facto attempt to justify the ITU's abrogation of the agreement with the IETF (TD07 (WP3/SG15) from December 2008 sourced by SG15): > > "The ITU-T accepts these recommendations and states that any extensions to MPLS technology will be progressed via the IETF standards process using the procedures defined in RFC 4929 (Change Process for Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) and Generalized MPLS (GMPLS) Protocols and Procedures). Experts from the ITU-T will assist the IETF in the development of RFCs that describe the transport extensions by providing input to and review of the drafts as they are progressed via the IETF standards process.. The ITU-T will develop new or revised Recommendations that will allow IETF MPLS-TP to be integrated into the transport network including integration with the existing equipment, and operations infrastructure. These Re
RE: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
The IETF MPLS-TP design team has successfully achieved its objectives. The main requirements work were published and the two subsidiary requirements documents (NM and OAM) were close to publication. The core work on the frameworks and solutions has started and were progressing. It was just natural to allow further work on MPLS-TP to continue using the IETF normal process to streamline the process and allow open participation by everyone in the industry. And as I indicated in previous mail, the design team worked on the design of the OAM solution in the f2f meeting in Stockholm, July 2009, and presented its recommendation to the MPLS WG in IETF 75. The recommendations were accepted and the WG started working on the solutions based on these recommendations. Best regards, Nurit -Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Worley, Dale R (Dale) Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 5:20 PM To: Huub van Helvoort; Brian E Carpenter Cc: IETF Subject: RE: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org On Behalf Of Huub van Helvoort > > On Friday October 2nd an agenda was distributed for the MEAD > team for the meeting in Munich on the MEAD team list m...@ietf.org. > On Monday October 5th an email was sent to m...@ietf.org > announcing the disbanding of the MEAD team, and that the > meeting in Munich should not be considered a MEAD team meeting. > > The decision to disband the MEAD team was liaised to the ITU-T > on the same day (October 5). > > Do I need to say more. Uh, yes. There are three statements, all of which are in the passive voice; they describe actions that were taken without describing what persons took the actions and on what authority. At this distance, I'm not sure that it matters, but if you are trying to enlighten those of us who were not involved in these events, leaving out all the *names* and even *organizational roles* makes everything obscure. Dale ___ 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
RE: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
Given the stiff formality of many of the messages on this topic, and the absence of description of who did what and why, I suspect the problem is some sort of a split regarding what approach (or which particular solution) should be taken in OAM for MPLS. And that the two factions were probably backed by different commercial interests. And that one faction had the upper hand within the IETF and the other faction had the upper hand within the ITU. The former committee was to provide the ITU faction with an official or de-facto veto power over the IETF output, so that the ITU faction's agreement would be required for "IETF consensus". Eventually, the IETF faction got sick of the fact that they weren't going to convert the ITU faction to their solution, so the veto arrangement was summarily terminated from the IETF side, and now the IETF faction can reach "consensus". So we will get two standards, one from the IETF and one from the ITU, and the winner will be determined in the marketplace. "The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from!" Dale ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
Hi, So far We did not see any justification for two competing solutions for OAM in MPLS-TP. We also did not see what is really missing in the IETF solution and why if something is missing it cannot be resolved in the context of a single solution. IT is not clear why alternative solution is needed. If enhancement is needed, I am sure the IETF would be happy to enhance the solution. There is no justification to confuse the industry with two competing solutions that are defined in two different organizations and may evolve in different and inconsistent way and will not allow two MPLS implementations (ITU and IETF) to co-exist in the same network. What is clear is that unfortunately this is NOT a technical discussion! The industry blessed the agreement between the ITU-T and the IETF and considered it as such a good opportunity for the Industry, incorporating together the expertise of both ITU and IETF organizations, avoiding duplication and inconsistencies. The determination of an alternative solution in the ITU-T for OAM is in contrary to the collaborative agreement between the ITU-T and the IETF. The IETF solution is progressing. The solution will satisfy the transport requirements as were defined together with the ITU-T. Complete interoperability and architectural soundness with MPLS/GMPLS will be guaranteed. The ITU-T SG15 OAM solution will enter the Consultation period where only Governments can respond. The document must be unopposed! The future of the document is uncertain and the process can be very long! Instead of putting so much energy in this political arguments and in the attempt to fragment the Industry, we could positively work together to ensure that the solution we define fully and appropriately satisfies the requirements. It is really a pity! Best regards, Nurit -Original Message- From: ext Worley, Dale R (Dale) [mailto:dwor...@avaya.com] Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 5:10 PM To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); Huub van Helvoort; Brian E Carpenter Cc: IETF Subject: RE: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS Given the stiff formality of many of the messages on this topic, and the absence of description of who did what and why, I suspect the problem is some sort of a split regarding what approach (or which particular solution) should be taken in OAM for MPLS. And that the two factions were probably backed by different commercial interests. And that one faction had the upper hand within the IETF and the other faction had the upper hand within the ITU. The former committee was to provide the ITU faction with an official or de-facto veto power over the IETF output, so that the ITU faction's agreement would be required for "IETF consensus". Eventually, the IETF faction got sick of the fact that they weren't going to convert the ITU faction to their solution, so the veto arrangement was summarily terminated from the IETF side, and now the IETF faction can reach "consensus". So we will get two standards, one from the IETF and one from the ITU, and the winner will be determined in the marketplace. "The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from!" Dale ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
- Original Message - From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" To: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" ; "Huubvan Helvoort" ; "Brian E Carpenter" Cc: "IETF" Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 4:09 PM > Given the stiff formality of many of the messages on this topic, and the absence of > description of who did what and why, I suspect the problem is some sort of a split > regarding what approach (or which particular solution) should be taken in OAM for > MPLS. And that the two factions were probably backed by different commercial interests. > And that one faction had the upper hand within the IETF and the other faction had > the upper hand within the ITU. The former committee was to provide the ITU faction > with an official or de-facto veto power over the IETF output, so that the ITU faction's > agreement would be required for "IETF consensus". Eventually, the IETF faction got sick > of the fact that they weren't going to convert the ITU faction to their solution, so the > veto arrangement was summarily terminated from the IETF side, and now the IETF faction > can reach "consensus". That is a very perceptive observation as a study of the e-mails contained in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg05612.html show, especially that of Jing Ruiquan (draft-bhh and Y.1731 being the basis of the favoured ITU-T solution now presented in G.tpoam). Tom Petch > > So we will get two standards, one from the IETF and one from the ITU, and the winner > will be determined in the marketplace. "The great thing about standards is that there > are so many to choose from!" > > Dale > ___ > 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
RE: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) [nurit.sprec...@nsn.com] So far We did not see any justification for two competing solutions for OAM in MPLS-TP. No doubt you are correct. But I will note that this is the first message in which a participant stated clearly that the essential issue is one of two competing solutions, rather than complaining about the bureaucratic details of the wrangling between the two camps. The important fact is not the roiling of the surface of the murky waters, but the movements of the alligators underneath. Dale ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
Given the subject matter, I suspect that the issue has something to do with net neutrality and the various parties attempting to spin on that particular issue. As with many of these layer 8+ issues, what is driving events is not necessarily the actual capabilities of the technology so much as the perceived capabilities. This conversation is not just taking place in IETF. There are international treaties which bind certain very large authoritarian states to co-operate to prevent 'information terrorism' (aka free speech) and 'dominance of the information infrastructure' (aka being the United States, Microsoft, Google, etc.). Now there was a time when the idea that the Internet or the Web might have political implications was to be treated with derision and sarcasm. After the past six weeks, the political dimension cannot be hidden any longer. Col Gaddafi is currently murdering his own people for having the temerity to oppose his misrule. I really don't think we can expect him to shrink from violating a MUST condition in an RFC. Nor do I think we are going to see major hardware vendors pass up sales because they will not implement censorship or control mechanisms (they have not done so to date). Much better to have a clean separation in my view and let all the folk with the complicated hidden agendas go elsewhere. On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Worley, Dale R (Dale) wrote: > Given the stiff formality of many of the messages on this topic, and the > absence of > description of who did what and why, I suspect the problem is some sort of > a split > regarding what approach (or which particular solution) should be taken in > OAM for > MPLS. And that the two factions were probably backed by different > commercial interests. > And that one faction had the upper hand within the IETF and the other > faction had > the upper hand within the ITU. The former committee was to provide the ITU > faction > with an official or de-facto veto power over the IETF output, so that the > ITU faction's > agreement would be required for "IETF consensus". Eventually, the IETF > faction got sick > of the fact that they weren't going to convert the ITU faction to their > solution, so the > veto arrangement was summarily terminated from the IETF side, and now the > IETF faction > can reach "consensus". > > So we will get two standards, one from the IETF and one from the ITU, and > the winner > will be determined in the marketplace. "The great thing about standards is > that there > are so many to choose from!" > > Dale > ___ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
