RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-08.txt> (An Overviewofthe OAM Tool Set for MPLS based Transport Networks) toInformational RFC

["Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <[e-mail]>]

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 you upon your own request. Surely for a draft where the
removal of your name from the list of editors was driven by your
concerns that people might misread your involvement/position. I would
think that in two years you would get around to checking for you that
the new acknowledgement is satisfactory. 
Best regards,
Nurit


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
ext Huub van Helvoort
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 1:28 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-08.txt> (An
Overviewofthe OAM Tool Set for MPLS based Transport Networks)
toInformational RFC

Hallo Nurit,

You replied:

> Thanks for your comments to IESG...

The IESG did send the message in order to make a decision, that
is why I addressed my comments to them.

> We can easily remove your name from the acknowledgement section.

Go ahead and do it.

> We put you there upon your request!

It is clear from your response that you did not understand my initial
explanation and request to be removed as editor.
When I wrote "you could mention me in the acknowledgements section" I
did *not* mean "make it more easy for the reader to mis-interpret the
acknowledgement for my role as Q10 rapporteur".
You did not even send me the text that you were going to include to
verify that this text would have taken away my concern.

> 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 list.

It just proves that you did not understand my initial explanation.

Regards, Huub.
==============
> As you recall you were an editor of the draft and on June 2010 (when
the
> document was already an IETF document for a while), you have asked to
> remove your name from the list of editors. See
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls-tp/current/msg04118.html.
the
> main reason was as you said:
>
> "It was my intention to be editor as an IETF member, however there are
> people that interpret my name/role differently. They see it as being
> editor as an ITU-T member and recently even as being editor as an
ITU-T
> Q10 rapporteur.".
>
> In a private mail you sent me later (attached) you proposed to include
> you in the acknowledgement section:
>
> " Yes, remove my name as editor. As Adrian suggested, you could
mention
> me in the acknowledgements section."
>
> It is a pity that you did not inform us that you changed your mind
since
> then, but it can easily be fixed!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Nurit
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
Of
> ext Huub van Helvoort
> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:49 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-08.txt> (An
> Overviewof the OAM Tool Set for MPLS based Transport Networks)
> toInformational RFC
>
> IESG,
>
> I do *NOT* support this draft unless the following changes are made:
>
> The first paragraph of section 8 Acknowledgements has to be removed:
>
> It is an attempt to capture history, but lacks accuracy.
>
> Removal does not impact the technical information in the draft;
>
> the tools have evolved significantly from the strawman tools proposed
>
> in Stockholm; some members of the MEAD team (I am one of them) do not
>
> consider that an agreement on this proposal was reached.
>
> I also request the removal of my name from this acknowledgements
section
>
> since I do not support this tool set, neither as an individual nor as
>
> ITU-T Q10 rapporteur. The latter is implied by mentioning my name in
>
> the same sentence as a WG chair and ADs.
>
> Regards, Huub.
>
> =============
>
>  > The IESG has received a request from the Multiprotocol Label
Switching WG
>
>  > (mpls) to consider the following document:
>
>  > - 'An Overview of the OAM Tool Set for MPLS based Transport
Networks'
>
>  > <draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-08.txt> as an Informational RFC
>
>  >
>
>  > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
solicits
>
>  > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to
the
>
>  > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> mailing lists by 2012-03-23.
> Exceptionally, comments may be
>
>  > sent to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> instead. In either
case,
> please retain the
>
>  > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
>  >
>
>  > Abstract
>
>  >
>
>  > This document provides an overview of the OAM toolset for MPLS
based
>
>  > Transport Networks. The toolset consists of a comprehensive set of
>
>  > fault management and performance monitoring capabilities (operating
>
>  > in the data-plane) which are appropriate for transport networks as
>
>  > required in RFC 5860 and support the network and services at
>
>  > different nested levels. This overview includes a brief recap of
>
>  > MPLS-TP OAM requirements and functions, and of generic mechanisms
>
>  > created in the MPLS data plane to allow the OAM packets run in-band
>
>  > and share their fate with data packets. The protocol definitions
for
>
>  > each of the MPLS-TP OAM tools are defined in separate documents
(RFCs
>
>  > or Working Group drafts) which are referenced by this document.
>  >
>  >
>  > The file can be obtained via
>  > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis/
>  >
>  > IESG discussion can be tracked via
>  >
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis/ballot/
>  >
>  >
>  > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>  > _____________________________________________
>  > IETF-Announce mailing list
>  > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>  > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>