IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: FW: Last Call:<draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons forSelecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

"GT RAMIREZ, Medel G." <medel@globetel.com.ph> Fri, 07 October 2011 01:56 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=026176935b=medel@globetel.com.ph>
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 DD7D421F8B98; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.103, BAYES_00=-2.599, RELAY_IS_203=0.994]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UsAGZoWxzyhu; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp02.globetel.com.ph (smtp02.globetel.com.ph [203.177.192.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B1CA21F8B95; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 18:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exgtbh01.globetel.com ([10.225.208.17]) by smtp02.globetel.com.ph (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p971xqh2007342; Fri, 7 Oct 2011 09:59:54 +0800
Received: from EXVSGT02.globetel.com ([10.225.208.145]) by exgtbh01.globetel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 7 Oct 2011 09:59:51 +0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: FW: Last Call:<draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons forSelecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 09:59:51 +0800
Message-ID: <A5AD67DA1ACB9648831FD753485B2BFE1356C059@EXVSGT02.globetel.com>
In-reply-to: <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223D56BC2@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-topic: FW: Last Call:<draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons forSelecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC
Thread-index: AcyDbrFqpM0ZIVszRuGUW9DSFCBJHAAQsrewADjRcTA=
X-Priority: 1
Priority: Urgent
Importance: high
References: <1317815466.64710.YahooMailClassic@web15608.mail.cnb.yahoo.com><OF6F3B1B56.62A7E34F-ON48257920.004BCE49-48257920.0051CF5E@zte.com.cn> <60C093A41B5E45409A19D42CF7786DFD5223D56BC2@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se>
From: "GT RAMIREZ, Medel G." <medel@globetel.com.ph>
To: ietf@ietf.org, mpls@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Oct 2011 01:59:51.0817 (UTC) FILETIME=[CD1D2F90:01CC8494]
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.4.6813, 1.0.211, 0.0.0000 definitions=2011-10-07_01:2011-10-06, 2011-10-07, 1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=6.0.2-1012030000 definitions=main-1110060318
Cc: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
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: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 01:56:46 -0000

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
David Allan I
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 7:05 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org; mpls@ietf.org
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: R: FW: Last
Call:<draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons
forSelecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

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-sprecher...

D



> 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 do, but after

> discussing with the chairs I came to the conclusion that it does not 
> comment on the technical or process decisions of the MPLS working 
> groups, and it does not attempt to make any technical evaluations or 
> definitions within the scope of the MPLS working group. It is more of 
> a philosophical analysis of the way the IETF approaches the "two 
> solutions" problem with special reference to MPLS-TP OAM.
>
> Thus, I am accepting the document as AD Sponsored rather than running 
> it through the MPLS working group. My reasoning is that the working 
> group has got plenty to do working on technical issues without being 
> diverted into wider IETF philosophy.
>
> As an AD Sponsored I-D it is subject to a four week IETF last call. 
> That is plenty of opportunity for everyone to comment and express 
> their views. Please send your comments to the IETF mailing list as 
> described below, or (in exceptional circumstances) direct to the IESG.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

This e-mail message (including attachments, if any) is intended for the use of the individual or the entity to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential and exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete this E-mail message immediately.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email