IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls-tp] Status of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 11 November 2010 02:34 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2C0A3A68C6 for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:34:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.485
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hXG-ea-r51Ba for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:34:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAFF83A691C for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:34:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oAB2YfEJ027580; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 02:34:41 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-731c.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.115.28]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oAB2YZoU027572; Thu, 11 Nov 2010 02:34:37 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: Malcolm.BETTS@zte.com.cn, mpls-tp@ietf.org
References: <OF6235F1E2.CDB94AAF-ON852577D8.000A112B-852577D8.000A818D@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <OF6235F1E2.CDB94AAF-ON852577D8.000A112B-852577D8.000A818D@zte.com.cn>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 02:34:37 -0000
Message-ID: <0fd101cb8148$fe6bd7e0$fb4387a0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0FD2_01CB8148.FE7EEAB0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQIUxVCf3TB5T/aVXql2w6pyRR1AZpLZBuBg
Content-Language: en-gb
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] Status of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv
X-BeenThere: mpls-tp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: MPLS-TP Mailing list <mpls-tp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls-tp>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls-tp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp>, <mailto:mpls-tp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 02:34:16 -0000

I think you have captured the key text and status of the document although I am
sure the chairs will want to comment.
 
My hearing was that you were asking about one draft during a discussion of a
different draft, and the chairs said please discuss this on the list.
 
Actually, this is exactly what you have done :-)
 
Adrian
 
From: mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Malcolm.BETTS@zte.com.cn
Sent: 11 November 2010 01:55
To: mpls-tp@ietf.org
Subject: [mpls-tp] Status of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv
 

I am confused by the statement that we need to discuss the status of
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv on the list. 

During discussion late August/early September in the context of the RFC vs ITU
Recommendations dependancy table the following statement was made: 

1. draft-ietf-mpls-tp-ach-tlv
   This draft has expired and we do not intend to keep it
   updated, instead definitions of TLVs for the associated
   channel will be defined in the appropriate specification.
   It is also not referenced by G.7712

Therefore the draft was removed from the dependance table. 

Has the status changed? 

Regards, 

Malcolm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email