RE: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-08.txt (An Overviewofthe OAM Tool Set for MPLS based Transport Networks) toInformational RFC

2012-03-23 Thread Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
Huub hi, The document went through two WG last calls...it is a pity you did not use the opportunity to provide your useful comment then. I am surprised that it took you almost two years and seven revisions of the document before you actually realized you are not happy with the way we acknowledged

Re: [PWE3] FW: Last Call: draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt(Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernet based OAM) to Informational RFC

2012-03-23 Thread Loa Andersson
Malcolm, good that we are making some progress! On the experimental code point -- I doesn't seem appropriate to call out the fact that some commercial products has been using an experimental code point in production setting! On the remain (key) disagreements

Re: IPR requirements in document write-up

2012-03-23 Thread t.petch
- Original Message - From: Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org To: Roni Even ron.even@gmail.com Cc: IETF ietf@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 8:50 PM My reading of question 7 is that the document shepherd have to ask the authors to confirm the

Re: [PWE3] FW: LastCall: draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC

2012-03-23 Thread t.petch
Loa The one point that jumps out at me is the proposed text Other message types should not be carried behind this code point. or should that be Other message types SHOULD NOT be carried behind this code point. which, in IETF-Land, is a bit different. I prefer the latter. Tom Petch -

Re: FW: LastCall:draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt(Allocationofan Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) toInformational RFC

2012-03-23 Thread t.petch
- Original Message - From: Alia Atlas akat...@gmail.com To: Rui Costa rco...@ptinovacao.pt Cc: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 10:07 PM Rui, Perhaps more familiarity with the related history over the last several years would help? I can recommend the MPLS list archives.

Re: Last Call:draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt (Allocation of anAssociated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC

2012-03-23 Thread t.petch
- Original Message - From: Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com To: t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com Cc: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 12:06 PM Tom, I've let this sit a while, but wanted to respond on the following point: On 3/6/12 4:25 PM, t.petch wrote: -ur responsibility is to

Re: FW: LastCall:draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt(Allocationofan Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernetbased OAM) toInformational RFC

2012-03-23 Thread Alia Atlas
Tom, Thank you for both judging consensus (the IESG's job) and instructing me on how it is done in the IETF (quite useful to me as a WG chair). Thanks also for cutting my email where I agreed that allocating a code-point for this particular use was the most tolerable option (I know the email

Re: [PWE3] FW: LastCall: draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC

2012-03-23 Thread Malcolm . BETTS
Tom, I have no objections to using the RFC 2119 key words, I am not sure if that is appropriate in an informational track document, I expect that our AD will provide some guidance. Regards, Malcolm t.petch daedu...@btconnect.com 23/03/2012 05:50 AM To Loa Andersson l...@pi.nu,

RE: [PWE3] FW: LastCall: draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use byITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC

2012-03-23 Thread Ross Callon
A current AD might take precedence over a past one, but back when I was on the IESG we twice had discussions of the use of RFC2119 keywords in informational track documents. Both times we fortunately came to the same conclusion - that it is fine to use RFC2119 keywords in informational (or

RE: [PWE3] Last Call: draft-ietf-pwe3-redundancy-bit-06.txt (Pseudowire Preferential Forwarding Status Bit) to Proposed Standard

2012-03-23 Thread Aissaoui, Mustapha (Mustapha)
Dear all, I received comments from Daniel regarding the intended use of the optional active PW selection mechanism in section 5.1. I pasted below the corresponding paragraph of Section 5.1 with the changes we agreed to underlined. He also asked if the default active PW selection mechanism

Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-08.txt (An Overviewofthe OAM Tool Set for MPLS based Transport Networks) toInformational RFC

2012-03-23 Thread Huub van Helvoort
Hallo Nurit, I will *not* change my mind. So it is useless to continue this thread. Just make the changes I requested. Regards, Huub. == On 23-03-12 08:11, Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) wrote: Huub hi, The document went through two WG last calls...it is a pity you did