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

Alessandro, Apparently, the advice given regarding the risks and costs associated with deploying proprietary or pre-standard solutions didn't resonate with you. Do you really expect the rest of us to clean up after you? Thanks, John > -Original Message- > From: mpls-boun...@ietf.org

RE: Re: [mpls] unresolved technical concerns

Alessandro, Most of the comments I remember reading were of the form "we don't like MPLS OAM because it has 'major unresolved technical concerns' and draft-bhh is *so* much better". I.e., they were neither constructive nor actionable. Thanks, John > -Original Message- > From: erminio

Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-12

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: dr

Re: TSVDIR review of draft-ietf-pim-port-08.txt

In most cases you replied OK - so I'm assuming the draft will be updated to reflect this and my comments will have been addressed. You raised a few specific questions: On 11/10/2011 18:36, Stig Venaas wrote: >> a few retransmissions would be OK, "several" seems better. > > OK, but isn't it us

RFP for Remote Participation Services Specifications Development

The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), on behalf of the IETF, announces this Request for Proposal to develop the specifications for Remote Participation Services. The successful bidder will enter into a contract with the Internet Society. The primary goal of this project is to devel