Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the cooperation on MPLS-TP

["BUSI ITALO" <[e-mail]>]

Adrian,

In order to avoid further misunderstandings, it is worth clarifying that
I was not willing to quote your statements nor to say that you are
misrepresenting the facts.

You have expressed an opinion that I do not agree with. You have all the
rights to express your opinion and I have all the rights to disagree
with it.

The problem I was trying to address is that in the past opinions like
yours were interpreted as statements of facts by many sources.

My intention was to make crystal clear that such a statement of facts is
inaccurate. The quotes were intended to represent the statement of facts
that is inaccurate.

I hope this clarifies my intention and apologize for having given the
wrong impression to have attacked your opinion (although I disagree with
it)

Italo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Farrel [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 11:15 AM
> To: BUSI ITALO; Thomas Walsh; Maarten Vissers; 
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the 
> cooperation on MPLS-TP
> 
> Whoa there Dobbin!
> 
> If you must quote people out of context, please at lead quote whole 
> subordinate clauses. Preferably whole sentences.
> 
> I said "If the ITU-T is not willing to produce this work I 
> must assume that 
> the JWT agreement is not backed by meaningful intent."
> 
> Sounds like an accurate statement.
> - It is a statement of my predicted behaviour
> - It is not (IMHO) a reasonable cause and effect
> 
> I understand that the ITU does not spit out working drafts in 
> quite the same 
> way as the IETF. The tendency being to cluster drafting 
> around the interim 
> meetings. However, in view of the Rapporteur's statement that 
> he expects to 
> see editor's revisions (presumably with meaningful 
> content/changes?) before 
> he will agree to the scheduling of an interim meeting, I 
> would hope to see 
> some work starting soon.
> 
> The debate about whether the I-Ds are stable is valid. If I 
> was editing a 
> new revision of a Recommendation, I would want to know that 
> the I-Ds I 
> depended on were about 75% stable before I started. But I 
> don't think I 
> would need over 95% stability until I was close to finished 
> with my work.
> 
> Cheers,
> Adrian
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "BUSI ITALO" <[e-mail]>
> To: "Thomas Walsh" <[e-mail]>; "Maarten Vissers" 
> <[e-mail]>; "Adrian Farrel" <[e-mail]>; 
> <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 9:28 AM
> Subject: RE: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the 
> cooperation on MPLS-TP
> 
> 
> As a consequence saying that "ITU-T is not willing to produce 
> this work
> " is another inaccurate representation of the facts
> 
> Italo
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas Walsh [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 10:37 PM
> > To: Maarten Vissers; Adrian Farrel; [e-mail];
> > [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > Cc: BUSI ITALO; [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the
> > cooperation on MPLS-TP
> >
> > Martin,
> >
> > You are correct on the procedure regarding the revision of the ITU-T
> > drafts.  It was worked out through extensive discussion in
> > Q12/15 and I
> > believe all the other relevant questions adopted the same 
> procedure by
> > pointing to section 3.6.5.
> >
> > I don't see any reason to change that as the revisions depend on the
> > internet drafts being stable.
> >
> > Tom
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Maarten Vissers [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 12:42 AM
> > > To: 'Adrian Farrel'; [e-mail]; Thomas Walsh;
> > [e-mail];
> > > [e-mail]
> > > Cc: 'BUSI ITALO'; [e-mail]
> > > Subject: RE: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the 
> cooperation on
> > MPLS-
> > > TP
> > >
> > > Adrian,
> > >
> > > > As yet I have not seen even an editor's revisions of any one
> > > Recommendation
> > > > (perhaps I have not looked in the right place?). If the
> > ITU-T is not
> > > willing
> > > > to produce this work I must assume that the JWT agreement is not
> > backed
> > > by
> > > > meaningful intent.
> > >
> > > I do not understand why you write "if the ITU-T is not 
> willing...".
> > You
> > > have
> > > attended the SG15 meeting and agreed with its report, which
> > states in
> > > section 3.6.5:
> > >
> > > "Once the internet drafts have reached a reasonable level
> > of stability
> > the
> > > editors will develop revised versions of the currently in
> > force T-MPLS
> > > Recommendations to reflect the IETF MPLS-TP architecture.
> > The editors
> > > should consult with the appropriate IETF WG chairs to 
> determine when
> > (and
> > > which aspects) of the internet drafts are stable enough to allow
> > drafting
> > > activities to proceed as early as possible.  These revised
> > Recommendations
> > > will refer to the technology as MPLS-TP.  Work on these revised
> > > Recommendations will be advanced by correspondence and at 
> a proposed
> > > interim
> > > meeting (TD55/PLEN).  The editors are requested to have draft text
> > > available
> > > at least one month before the interim meeting (i.e. May
> > 1st) to allow
> > > other
> > > participants to review the drafts and provide contributions
> > to refine
> > the
> > > text."
> > >
> > > The editors of the T-MPLS recommendations should develop revised
> > versions
> > > once the internet drafts have reached a reasonable level of
> > stability.
> > I
> > > am
> > > not sure if there is any draft that has reached this level at this
> > point
> > > in
> > > time.
> > >
> > > Nonetheless as editor of G.8112 I have already started 
> the revision
> > > process,
> > > but have kept the number of changes to the absolute 
> minimum so far.
> > I.e. I
> > > have replaced "T-MPLS" by "MPLS-TP", "TTM" by "MTM" and 
> "TM" by "MT"
> > in
> > > the
> > > latest draft revised G.8112 (WD47R1, Oct. 2007) document.
> > >
> > > I can share this very first MPLS-TP revised version of
> > G.8112 with you
> > > today, or could wait somewhat longer to include more
> > changes. I expect
> > > that
> > > the same changes can be made to G.8110.1, G.8121, G.8131, 
> G.8151 at
> > this
> > > point in time. If it is helpful to make those changes and
> > upload those
> > > drafts then this can be done. Please let me know and I will
> > upload my
> > > initial revision.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Maarten
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [e-mail] 
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > Behalf
> > > Of Adrian Farrel
> > > Sent: vrijdag 6 februari 2009 21:59
> > > To: [e-mail]; 'Thomas Walsh'; [e-mail];
> > > [e-mail]
> > > Cc: 'BUSI ITALO'; [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the 
> cooperation on
> > MPLS-
> > > TP
> > >
> > > Shahram,
> > >
> > > Trying to defuse a little...
> > > I'm not sure that discussing the IETF behavior is 
> entirely helpful,
> > but
> > > for
> > > reference, RFCs that are "replaced" are marked in the RFC list as
> > > 'obsolete.' RFCs that are no longer relevant are marked as
> > 'historic'
> > and
> > > RFCs that are considered harmful are obsoleted by a new RFC that
> > describes
> > > how they are harmful.
> > >
> > > What is at stake here is what is most helpful to the community at
> > large.
> > > If
> > > a technology (e.g. T-MPLS) is being replaced by another technology
> > (MPLS-
> > > TP)
> > > by wide consensus of the community (ITU-T and IETF) it is
> > not helpful
> > to
> > > allow people to think that the old technology is still
> > valid and worth
> > > implementing. Doing so would mislead people into thinking 
> that they
> > there
> > > is
> > > community support for the technology. A new hardware
> > company coming to
> > the
> > > list of Recommendations might conclude that the industry
> > supports the
> > > technology and might waste valuable development time pursuing the
> > > technology.
> > >
> > > Given that the IETF has persuaded the ITU-T that T-MPLS
> > should not be
> > > worked
> > > on further and should be replaced by MPLS-TP, it is dangerously
> > misleading
> > > to leave the T-MPLS Recommendations "lying around".
> > >
> > > The agreement in Geneva seems to have been a compromise. The IETF
> > > requested
> > > that the ITU-T should delete the existing T-MPLS
> > Recommendations. The
> > ITU-
> > > T
> > > has decided to leave the Recommendations in place until they are
> > > "replaced"
> > > by the v2 Recommendations that will move to MPLS-TP. It is
> > debateable
> > > whether this replacement will mean that the v1 Recommendations are
> > > 'deprecated', 'obsoleted', or merely 'replaced'. It would seem
> > sensible,
> > > however, to note that G.xxxx v2 completely replaces G.xxxx
> > v1 even if
> > the
> > > latter remains available in the repository. Someone 
> implementing or
> > > deploying G.xxxx would take the most recent version.
> > >
> > > Actually, I had some reservations about the agreement in 
> Geneva. It
> > seems
> > > to
> > > me to be predicated on the ITU-T pulling its finger out and
> > producing
> > the
> > > v2
> > > Recommendations. As yet I have not seen even an editor's
> > revisions of
> > any
> > > one Recommendation (perhaps I have not looked in the right
> > place?). If
> > the
> > > ITU-T is not willing to produce this work I must assume 
> that the JWT
> > > agreement is not backed by meaningful intent.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Adrian
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Shahram Davari" <[e-mail]>
> > > To: "'Thomas Walsh'" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>;
> > > <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: "'BUSI ITALO'" <[e-mail]>;
> > <[e-mail]>
> > > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 7:50 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the 
> cooperation on
> > MPLS-
> > > TP
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi Tom,
> > > >
> > > > AFAIK IETF doesn't remove an obsolete RFC from its server (e.g.
> > > RFC2598).
> > > > Are you then asking that ITU should remove obsolete
> > recommendations
> > > > from its server.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Shahram
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [e-mail]
> > [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > > > Behalf Of Thomas Walsh
> > > > Sent: February-06-09 2:16 PM
> > > > To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > > Cc: BUSI ITALO; [e-mail]
> > > > Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the
> > cooperation on
> > > > MPLS-TP
> > > >
> > > > Sharam,
> > > >
> > > > Please note I am not speaking for Stewart here, but 
> this is my own
> > > > reaction to what you just said.
> > > >
> > > > These are two necessary steps for sure and as far as I know are
> > being
> > > > followed.  I see nothing inconsistent in what Stuart said.
> > > >
> > > > Bottom line:
> > > > The T-MPLS Recommendations were never submitted according to the
> > IETF
> > > > change process and hence must be removed.
> > > >
> > > > Monique and I just spent two weeks in January at ITU-T SG
> > 13 and SG
> > 11.
> > > > We generally found very good cooperation in their
> > understanding that
> > > > they can not publish any change to IP or an MPLS protocol in a
> > > > Recommendation without following the IETF change process.
> > > >
> > > > The JWT agreement had two options (1) and (2).
> > > >
> > > > Option 2 would allow publication of T-MPLS
> > Recommendations by ITU-T
> > as
> > > > they currently exist as long as they remove the MPLS Ethertype.
> > > >
> > > > Option (1) does not allow use of the MPLS Ethertype in an ITU-T
> > > > Recommendation unless it's a protocol approved by IETF
> > according to
> > > > its change process.  And this option conforms to the IETF Change
> > > process.
> > > >
> > > > Please do not quote JWT agreements out of context. The
> > JWT agreement
> > > > does not give ITU-T the right to ignore the IETF change process.
> > > >
> > > > ITU-T may freely use IETF approved protocols.  T-MPLS 
> is not IETF
> > > > approved according to the change process. IETF has a 
> right to ask
> > for
> > > > these offending documents to be withdrawn.
> > > >
> > > > Just my view,
> > > >
> > > > Tom
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: [e-mail]
> > [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > > > Behalf
> > > >> Of Shahram Davari
> > > >> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 10:08 AM
> > > >> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > >> Cc: 'BUSI ITALO'; [e-mail]
> > > >> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the
> > cooperation on
> > > > MPLS-
> > > >> TP
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Stewart,
> > > >>
> > > >> Here is your own report:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bryant-mpls-tp-jwt-report-
> > > >> 00.txt
> > > >>
> > > >> and here is what it says in your report that ITU-T 
> agreed to do:
> > > >>
> > > >> - Alignment of the current T-MPLS ITU-T Recommendations with
> > MPLS-TP
> > > >>       and,
> > > >> - Termination of the work on current T-MPLS.
> > > >>
> > > >> I can't see anywhere in the report the term or intention of
> > > > deprecating.
> > > >> Could you please clarify which part of this report indicates
> > > > deprecating?
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Shahram
> > > >>
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: [e-mail]
> > [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > > > Behalf
> > > >> Of Stewart Bryant
> > > >> Sent: February-06-09 12:35 PM
> > > >> To: [e-mail]
> > > >> Cc: BUSI ITALO; [e-mail]
> > > >> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] liaisons to the ITU-T (3) the
> > cooperation on
> > > > MPLS-
> > > >> TP
> > > >>
> > > >> Huub van Helvoort wrote:
> > > >> > Stewart,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > You replied:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >>> So by keeping the word "depreciation" in the 
> liaison response
> > the
> > > >> >>> whole discussion will start again and as Stuart already
> > mentioned
> > > >> >>> a few times, this is a waste of time and resources.
> > > >> >>> And also it confuses the industry about the position of the
> > IETF.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> There is no confusion about the position of the IETF. It has
> > quite
> > > >> >> clearly stated that T-MPLS is a potential danger to
> > the Internet
> > > >> >> and should not be deployed.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> The most appropriate action under such circumstances is
> > > >> >> deprecation of the protocol.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Does this mean that you do not accept the agreement
> > documented in
> > > >> > the JWT report and WP3 report and that all the time spent to
> > > >> > discuss these agreements is wasted and that you want to start
> > this
> > > >> > discussion again.
> > > >> >
> > > >> Huub
> > > >>
> > > >> I can see no logical linkage between my statement and your
> > deduction.
> > > >> Please will you explain it to me.
> > > >>
> > > >> Stewart
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> mpls-tp mailing list
> > > >> [e-mail]
> > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> mpls-tp mailing list
> > > >> [e-mail]
> > > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > mpls-tp mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > mpls-tp mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > mpls-tp mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
> >
> >
> 
>