RE: [mpls] R: FW: Last Call: (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

As do I > -Original Message- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > David Sinicrope > Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 7:11 PM > To: David Allan I > Cc: m...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [mpls] R: FW: Last Call: considerations-01.txt> (The R

Re: Last Call: (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) toInformational RFC

Feng, I'm not sure how to parse this, but personal attacks on ietf mailing should at least be substantiated with evidence. Like been said before we discuss thing over and over and come to an working group or IETF consensus call, and then the discussion starts over again. /Loa On 2011-10-05 13:5

Re: 答复: [mpls] 回复： R: FW: Last Call: (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

Brian, The second solution already exists, (300,00+ nodes already deployed - see other emails on this thread). We must acknowledge this and find the most cost effective way of allowing interconnection. That is best achieved by recognizing the Ethernet tool set based solution and defining int

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

Rui, Excellent point, I fully agree, we need to focus on the 99% that is identical and not cause the 1% that is different (for good reasons) to cause a rift that will drive further divergence. Regards, Malcolm Rui Costa Sent by: ietf-boun...@ietf.org 05/10/2011 11:06 PM To "ietf@ietf.org

RE: Last Call: (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) toInformational RFC

Dear Loa, I am sorry if you regard my email is personal attacks, but I think I tell the truth, here are evidences. 1. Draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations is a personal draft, it ask for comments in ietf, I have expressed my comments on my previous emails and I don't support it. ( You

Re: [mpls] FW: Last Call: (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

the ietf, and i hope all sdos, are supposed to provide users with interoperable multi-vendor choice, not non-interoperable multi-standard incompatibility. from a sic year old broadside The IETF’s vendor/market approach has engendered a ‘let the ma

Discussion of closure of the MEAD Team

Hi, Since this topic has diverged somewhat from the IETF last call on draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations, I have changed the subject line. > 2. For MEAD team's decision on OAM, it was recorded in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam- > analysis as below, but some MEAD members don't agree it, so they qu

Re: Last Call: (Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations) to Informational RFC

On 05/Oct/11 20:22, SM wrote: > The Abstract mentions that: > > "While not originally written as an Internet Draft, it has been >contributed to the IETF standards repository in order to make it >easier to incorporate this material into IETF work." > > The "no derivative" clause makes it

Re: Last Call: (Complaint Feedback Loop Operational Recommendations) to Informational RFC

On Oct 6, 2011, at 9:32 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On 05/Oct/11 20:22, SM wrote: >> The Abstract mentions that: >> >> "While not originally written as an Internet Draft, it has been >> contributed to the IETF standards repository in order to make it >> easier to incorporate this material

RE: unresolved technical concerns

Dear Alessandro, Lots of thanks for a prompt response. Unfortunately your response does not really help (at least, me) to identify even a single specific technical issue. You may attribute it to my faulty memory, but I could not remember any. Presenting these cocerns in the form of an I-D as su

RE: [mpls] 答复: 回复： R: FW: Last Call: (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

Jian, See in-line. > -Original Message- > From: mpls-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > yang.jia...@zte.com.cn > Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 10:54 AM > To: ietf@ietf.org; m...@ietf.org; mpls-bounces@ietf.orgLarry > Subject: [mpls] 答复: 回复： R: FW: Last Call

RE: [mpls] unresolved technical concerns

Yep. We are going in circles again. We need to see technical details on the issues documented in an I-D as Stewart suggested. Don't remember seeing such document either. Luyuan > -Original Message- > From: mpls-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Alexander Va

RE: [codec] Last Call: (Guidelines for the Codec Development Within the IETF) to Informational RFC

Dear Phillip Hallam-Baker, > I have some issues with the way that the section on IPR is written. > While I agree with most of the statements there. I don't see my two > biggest IPR concerns listed. > 1) Specific to this document, we already have unencumbered CODECs that > permit encoding of audio

Re: [codec] Last Call: (Guidelines for the Codec Development Within the IETF) to Informational RFC

On 5 October 2011 13:25, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: > Taken in combination, I cannot imagine any reason to use any audio > codec other than MP3 or AC2 (or some other similar legacy scheme) once > we can be assured that the corresponding patents have expired. I'm not familiar with AC2, but if yo

R: FW: Last Call: (The Reasons for Selecting 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 publicat

RE: [mpls] R: FW: Last Call: (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

Yes/support Regards, Jeff > > > >> 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 d

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

I support publication. Please consider my comments as LC comments. Regards, Greg -- Forwarded message -- From: Greg Mirsky mailto:gregimir...@gmail.com>> Date: Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM Subject: Comments to draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations To: ietf@ietf.org

RE: [mpls] R: FW: LastCall: (TheReasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) toInformational RFC

Same here. I support publication of the draft. Luyuan > -Original Message- > From: mpls-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > John E Drake > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 7:11 AM > To: David Sinicrope; David Allan I > Cc: m...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org > Subject:

Re: [mpls] FW: Last Call: (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

This document provides a factual and concise summary of work, events, and points of view that have developed since the JWT, a summary that's timely and sorely needed as few in the industry outside the project (or even inside the project) can make sense of it. It also provides a thorough and access

Re: Discussion of closure of the MEAD Team

On 2011-10-07 04:01, Adrian Farrel wrote: ... > I am aware that there are comments that an IETF design team should not have > been > shut down without consent from the ITU-T. I find, however, that when the ITU-T > agreed to develop MPLS-TP in cooperation with the IETF within the IETF and > using

Re: Last Call: (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

Malcolm, I'm technically incompetent to comment on draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn. However, if we reframe the debate as "how to reconcile OaM for Ethernet-based PTN with OaM for MPLS-TP-based PTN", we might have a more productive discussion. Regards Brian Carpenter On 2011-10-07 03:00, malcolm.be.

Re: Last Call: (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

Brian, Thank you for your constructive suggestion. I will attempt to start a discussion on a new thread in a few days - I am currently travelling with very limited time windows when I can access the Internet. Regards, Malcolm Brian E Carpenter 06/10/2011 03:47 PM To malcolm.be...@zte.c

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

-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 I

Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

Total of 124 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Oct 7 00:53:02 EDT 2011 Messages | Bytes| Who +--++--+ 4.03% |5 | 7.74% |87453 | malcolm.be...@zte.com.cn 4.84% |6 | 3.75% |42375 | s...@res

Re: Weekly posting summary for ietf@ietf.org

Salut Vi vi -- Yves Miezan Ezo www.chala.biz www.isoc.fr www.fossfa.net www.aprelia.org Thomas Narten a écrit : Total of 124 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Oct 7 00:53:02 EDT 2011 Messages | Bytes | Who +--++--+ 4.03% | 5 |