> IMO it is a statement of principle going forward. As such it does not
> "fix" or "make go away" the current situation, but it would be an IETF
> consensus position on a way forward. And I agree with that position.
>
> Lots of folks do proprietary deployments, squat on code points
> etc. That can
etc. That cannot
be "fixed" either, but I do not believe in rewarding it.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Rolf Winter [mailto:rolf.win...@neclab.eu]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 6:39 AM
To: David Allan I; ietf@ietf.org; m...@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [mpls] R: FW: Last Call:
Hi all,
I concur with both parts of Dave's message :-( and support publication of the
draft.
I have an editorial/factual comment regarding Section 4.2 of the draft.
Let's begin with the fact that SAToP (i.e. RFC 4553) is not a Draft Standard,
it is a Proposed Standard RFC.
Further, I am not su
While it is not perfect, I too support publication...
W
On Oct 5, 2011, at 7:11 PM, David Sinicrope wrote:
> I concur with Dave's comment and support publication of the draft.
> Dave
>
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2011, at 7:06 PM, "David Allan I"
> wrote:
>
>> I think it is unfortunate that we are in a
Dave,
could you be more precise about what you think the utility of this document is
in this particular situation. I mean, what will its effect be in the current
situation. What will change after this document has been published. It seems
everybody believes the "situation" will be resolved once
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
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
I concur with Dave's comment and support publication of the draft.
Dave
On Oct 5, 2011, at 7:06 PM, "David Allan I" wrote:
> 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-spre
Alessandro, Stewart and all,
I concur with Stewart: please write a draft detailing your major technical
concerns.
I'd like to add a quote from Malcolm's presentation at the IETF meeting in
Prague:
"Differences are close to invisible at the level of
the requirements in RFC5860".
Jus
On 05/10/2011 10:38, D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo wrote:
> major unresolved technical concerns
Alessandro
Please can I suggest that you write an internet draft detailing
these "major unresolved technical concerns" so that we
can all understand them.
Such a draft needs to be technical, and de
10 matches
Mail list logo
