Re: [CCAMP] G.698.2 MIB concerns addressed by ITU-T colleagues

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Sun, 16 March 2014 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE811A0211 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.667
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.667 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Mk0jREz32VVc for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy1-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.25.95]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2C1F21A01E9 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 08:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 2509 invoked by uid 0); 16 Mar 2014 15:55:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw2) (10.0.90.83) by gproxy1.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 16 Mar 2014 15:55:51 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw2 with id eFvl1n0012SSUrH01FvoWp; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 09:55:50 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=ar4hV0pV c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=cNaOj0WVAAAA:8 a=f5113yIGAAAA:8 a=KZjT-1wHC7QA:10 a=Ct-UEOA0R7sA:10 a=HFCU6gKsb0MA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 a=-NfooI8aBGcA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=_hf34YSDaFs600udjwcA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:To:From; bh=8sV4TRY5bZ9iBVf2C6MXrZRMW4zqL1+l7vGLcNDXBco=; b=BvMKoVEaG4pwOHUDoYQMz7imCxZ9a0jcOO8p689L1tQ5e7YFhJ39EFMDV7d33KBrwmFFfwbnRv5oCjViFCjPHAhS0zjsgnOhBgzlXjWN6gbMj73DVs39+eqqsKyAFIaV;
Received: from [70.215.79.123] (port=28117 helo=[10.189.179.163]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1WPDPd-0008D6-LJ; Sun, 16 Mar 2014 09:55:45 -0600
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: <huubatwork@gmail.com>, <ccamp@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 11:55:42 -0400
Message-ID: <144cb9ae550.2764.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
In-Reply-To: <5325C0A8.9060100@gmail.com>
References: <D0A3A22C2D7BE64AA7506612C2E9BAB7015368006C1B@HE101451.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <532311C3.8050505@gmail.com> <06bde98852e5483394a446bdc62a5452@BN1PR05MB041.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <5325C0A8.9060100@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1 AquaMail/1.3.8 (build: 2100414)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Identified-User: {1038:box313.bluehost.com:labnmobi:labn.net} {sentby:smtp auth 70.215.79.123 authed with lberger@labn.net}
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/MDDy3Cw71SBPyU9dDZgus2YFpW8
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] G.698.2 MIB concerns addressed by ITU-T colleagues
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 15:56:08 -0000

On March 16, 2014 11:18:37 AM Huub van Helvoort <huubatwork@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hallo Gert,
>
> You wrote:
>
> > we go back and forth on this since quite a while.
>  > As neither the LMP nor the SNMP draft are WG documents,
>  > there is no Liaison.
>
> I was not aware of the requirement to have a WG document before
> being able to liaise.
> In that case only direct communication between the autors and Q6
> experst remains.
>

I too am unaware of this requirement. It certainly has been our practice to 
limit liaisons to specific working group documents, but i see no reason 
that we cannot cover questions related to wg activity/discussions. As 
always liaisons must be considered on a case by case basis.

I suggest that the authors propose liaison text that they wish for the WG 
to consider.

Lou