Re: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt>(The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) toInformational RFC

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Huub van Helvoort" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 8:47 AM
> All,
>
> Section 1.1 contains the following text:
>
>     An analysis of the technical options for OAM solutions was carried
>     out by a design team (the MEAD team) consisting of experts from both
>     the ITU-T and the IETF.  The team reached an agreement on the
>     principles of the design and the direction for the development of
>     an MPLS-TP OAM toolset.
>
> I was a member of the MEAD team, I do not support this conclusion.
>
>     A report was subsequently submitted to the
>     IETF MPLS Working Group at the Stockholm IETF meeting in July 2009.
>
> Please provide a reference to the report. I would like to read it,
> and see what my conclusion was.
>
>     The guidelines drawn up by the design team have played an important
>     role in the creation of a coherent MPLS-TP OAM solution.
>
> The MEAD team was disbanded before the guidelines were finished and
> agreed within the team.

Huub

I appreciate that you were unhappy with the disbandment of the MEAD team, and
that that is still an issue for you; I would value understanding what set your
expectations for the MEAD team.

My background is from the IETF and that gives me different persective on the
MEAD team.  Design teams are a part of the IETF process, but run counter to the
open discussion that characterises most of the work of the IETF, so their scope
should be limited as should their duration.  When the MEAD team was disbanded, I
gave a sigh of relief as I saw it running counter to the processes of the IETF,
in both respects.  Clearly, you have different expectations which makes it
valuable to understand how those came about.

Tom Petch

> Regards, Huub.
>