Re: [mpls] R: RE: R: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt> (Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard
Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Thu, 14 July 2011 20:15 UTC
Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DD7911E8087; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.923
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.923 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.324, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IHmGJeYrWyxY; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0EDE11E8079; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.24.53] (host-64-47-136-190.masergy.com [64.47.136.190]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6EKF0Wj039329 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:15:00 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Subject: Re: [mpls] R: RE: R: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt> (Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A0A92C535B@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:14:54 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4323DAB4-3BCC-434F-98EF-515FCA9381DC@bogus.com>
References: <29155895.3316791310591053994.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <5E893DB832F57341992548CDBB333163A0A92C535B@EMBX01-HQ.jnpr.net>
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:15:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:15:02 -0000
To the extent that this particular debate (that of the nature scope and success or failure of the liaison effort) has been going on for some time: * it's not going to be resolved. * rehashing the history of how we came to this point it advances what agenda? It would seems timely in the IETF last call to focus the line of criticism on the merits or lack thereof of the draft as it stands, not on how we arrived here. joel
- RE: RE: [mpls] R: RE: R: Re: Last Call: <draft-ie… John E Drake
- R: RE: [mpls] R: RE: R: Re: Last Call: <draft-iet… erminio.ottone_69@libero.it
- Re: [mpls] R: RE: R: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-m… Joel Jaeggli