I support the IETF and IAB chairs signing the document,
Nurit
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
ext Adrian Farrel
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 12:38 AM
To: 'IETF'; 'IAB'; 'IETF-Announce'
Subject: RE: Last Call: Modern Global
Istanbul, Dubai, and similar places will not allow all of us in the
community to participate in the meetings
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:20 PM
To: ext
+1
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext
Yoav Nir
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 9:07 PM
To: Geoff Mulligan
Cc: Carsten Bormann; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)
Mileage varies.
Why the survey should limit it to the last five meetings...
In the long history we experienced additional good places
So maybe the survey should be more open and let each list his 3-5 favorable
places based on the experience from earlier meetings?
Best regards,
Nurit
-Original
Oslo?
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext
Daniele Ceccarelli
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 3:24 PM
To: Andrew Sullivan; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: So, where to repeat? (was:Re: management granularity)
Dublin panned? I thought it
When you are not close (time), flight cost may become higher in the priority
(over hotem)
Flying to Vancouver for me for example is the most expensive tripeven
though the city is amazing and the host was wonderful!
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org
Hi,
Please note the new version of draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-consideration
(03) that was just submitted.
In this version we attempted to satisfy the Last Call comments we got.
Diffs can be used to see the changes from version 01
(AnOverviewoftheOAM Tool Set for MPLS based Transport Networks) toInformational
RFC
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
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
Huub hi,
Thanks for your comments to IESG...
We can easily remove your name from the acknowledgement section. We put
you there upon your request!
I am sorry that I am going to share on the list a private mail from you
to me but I can see no other choice with the mail you have just sent to
the
Hello,
I still expect the author of draft-betts to answer my question...
Maybe you could clarify how the text in your draft can be improved to
protect the use of the code point from future extensions beyond the purpose of
the code point allocation?
I am a bit disappointed to see that the
.
Nurit
-Original Message-
From: ext t.petch [mailto:daedu...@btconnect.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 10:15 AM
To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); stbry...@cisco.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last
Call:draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt(Allocationofan
Associated
Tom,
Did Huub and Malcolm represent the ITU in their assessments?
I guess other ITU members have different view on this!
Best regards,
Nurit
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
ext t.petch
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 5:06 PM
To:
Jian hello,
I would warmly recommend you not to mention the collaboration on MPLS-TP.
According to the collaborative agreement between the organziations we were
supposed to see a single solution developed in the IETF using the IETF
processess...
The developmenet of an alternative solution in the
future extensions beyond the purpose of the code
point allocation?
Best regards,
Nurit
מאת: ietf-boun...@ietf.org בשם Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
נשלח: ג 13/03/2012 20:09
אל: Andrew G. Malis; ext Ross Callon
עותק לידיעה: ietf@ietf.org
נושא: הנדון: RE
refinements to G.8113.1 such that it could satisfy
all the functional requirements defined in RFC 5860.
-? ??-
???: ext Ross Callon
: 13/03/2012, 19:27
??: Andrew G. Malis; Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
: ietf@ietf.org
: RE: Last
Call:draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code
Loa hi,
I think your proposal is productive and provides a good basis to
progress.
Please see some comments inline (Nurit...\Nurit).
Best regards,
Nurit
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
ext Loa Andersson
Sent: Monday, March 12,
of the recommendation and
they will use the same code point that is allocated for the first version.
This is a real issue.
Regards,
Nurit
-הודעה מקורית-
מאת: ext Ross Callon
נשלח: 13/03/2012, 19:27
אל: Andrew G. Malis; Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
עותק: ietf@ietf.org
נושא: RE
[mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
Russ Housley
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 3:52 PM
To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
Cc: IETF
Subject: 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
Great!
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
ext Kyung-Yeop Hong (hongk)
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 5:14 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call:
draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt(Allocation of an Associated
Channel Code
Hi,
I cannot support the publication of the document in its current version.
I have the following concerns:
*It is indicated that the channel is intended to be used to
carry Ethernet based OAM messages. It is not clear why there is a need
for ACH. PWs can be used to transmit
Hi Russ,
I am not K.Y., but to me it seems at the moment as a very theoretical
question.
If the document is stable and approved, we can re-issue an IETF LC for a
better version of draft-betts that resolves my and others' comments that
I sent earlier today and the IETF can make the decision then.
Hi Russ,
I am not K.Y., but to me it seems at the moment as a very theoretical
question.
If the G.8113.1 document is stable and approved, we can re-issue an IETF
LC for a
better version of draft-betts that resolves my and others' comments that
I sent earlier today and the IETF can make the
Russ,
Independently of that point, draft-betts in its current version has many
issues
Many clarifications are needed before it can be consideredplease see
my mail for the details.
Best regards,
Nurit
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On
be defined
in future versions of G.8113.1.
Best regards,
Nurit
---
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 8:07 PM
To: ext Russ Housley; Loa Andersson
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Draft-betts asks a code point for a document which is not mature and not
agreed yet. Usually we do not issue last call for a document in such a
condition!
And in addition, draft-betts has many issues that must be resolved
first.
For example it must be clear for what the code point is requested.
Russ,
I propose to simply re-discuss it when and IFF G.8113.1 is mature and
approved...
Best regards,
Nurit
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
ext Russ Housley
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 9:12 PM
To: IETF
Subject: Re: Last
Hi,
I fully agree with John and Tom.
G.8113.1 intends to provide an OAM solution for MPLS-TP networks and the
discussion on your draft completely belongs in the MPLS WG and also in
the PWE3 WG.
Two more points:
* Malcolm, you say that that the requested code point is not
limited to
Support
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext
Scott Mansfield
Sent: א 08 ינואר 2012 15:53
To: ietf@ietf.org; m...@ietf.org; p...@ietf.org; cc...@ietf.org
Cc: swal...@cisco.com; stbry...@cisco.com; adr...@olddog.co.uk;
When saying support, I mean of course that I fully support the proposal of
Scott!
-Original Message-
From: ccamp-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ccamp-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
Sent: ב 09 ינואר 2012 19:20
To: ext Scott Mansfield; ietf@ietf.org; m
Huub hi,
I was in the closing plenary, and I heard different reasons for not
approving G.8113.1.
The main argument that I heard was because of lack of consensus.
Best regards,
Nurit
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
ext Huub helvoort
Sent: Wednesday,
and judge it…
Best regards,
Nurit
From: ext HUANG Feng F [mailto:feng.f.hu...@alcatel-sbell.com.cn]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 1:29 PM
To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
Cc: ext Huub helvoort; Russ Housley; malcolm.be...@zte.com.cn;
ietf-boun...@ietf.org; draft-betts-itu-oam-ach
HUANG Feng F [mailto:feng.f.hu...@alcatel-sbell.com.cn]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 1:59 PM
To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
Cc: ext Huub helvoort; Russ Housley; malcolm.be...@zte.com.cn;
ietf-boun...@ietf.org; draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-po...@tools.ietf.org;
ietf@ietf.org; m
Hi,
I fully support Stewart!
G.8113.1 proposes a OAM solution for MPLS-TP networks.
It uses the MPLS EtherType (when transmitted inband and getting the same
treatment as the data traffic).
The document is built on G.8110.1 (MPLS-TP architecture) which refers to
G.8110 (MPLS architecture), and
note that the proposed solution is the same as
draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-07 that was discussed in the MPLS WG.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2011 6:07 PM
PM
To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); stbry...@cisco.com; Adrian
Farrel
Cc: iesg; ietf
Subject: Re: Request to publish
draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-01.txt
- Original Message -
From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) nurit.sprec...@nsn.com
To: stbry...@cisco.com; Adrian
Both Minneapolis and Phoenix have huge conference facilities, are easy
to go to, and can get cheap off-season discount
For whom?
For me it is much cheaper and easier to go to Europe:-(
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
ext Ping Pan
Sent: Sunday,
AND DC. ALso places where you need an extra hop to get
there.
/Loa
On 2011-10-23 09:43, Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) wrote:
Both Minneapolis and Phoenix have huge conference facilities, are
easy
to go to, and can get cheap off-season discount
For whom?
For me it is much cheaper
Huub,
You say
The liaison informs the IETF that on September 16 recommendation
G.8113.2 was consented in a WP3 plenary meeting. In both the Beijing Q10
expert meeting where the consent was proposed and the WP3 plenary
meeting where the consent took place, there were no objections.
My
Rui,
I kindly propose not to refer in this context to the Feb2011 WP3 and
SG15 plenary meetings
Very unfortunately, it was far away from being a technical
discussion.or technical poll.
Therefore it cannot be a reference to any argument in this context.
Regards,
Nurit
-Original
Hi,
Just to make it clear, this is not a discussion on the requirements. I
would like to encourage this kind of discussion but in the right
context.
The CC-CV-RDI draft aims to satisfy the OAM requirements which are
specified in RFC 5860. One of the requirements there is to provide a
tool for CC
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
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
Same in my case!
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
ext Thomas Nadeau
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 8:26 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: Henk Uijterwaal; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Has anyone found a hotel for Quebec City that isn't
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 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
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
Hi,
I am NOT happy with the new date and would like to ask to keep the original
proposed date.
Best regards,
Nurit
--- הודעה מקורית ---
מאת: ext Marshall Eubanks t...@americafree.tv
נושא: Re: IAB/IESG Joint Design Session on Forwarding Plane
Operations,Administration and Maintenance
תאריך: 26
Dear Eve,
Thanks for your review.
I think you are actually right. We cannot say that the protocol is
(already) defined. But we should indicate that such a protocol should be
defined as part of the work on linear protection.
We will fix the text accordingly.
Best regards,
Nurit
From:
49 matches
Mail list logo
