IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls-tp] Uncoordinated Protocl Development Considered Harmful Draft

"Andrew G. Malis" <amalis@gmail.com> Thu, 23 July 2009 13:15 UTC

Return-Path: <amalis@gmail.com>
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 771CF3A6AA1 for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:15:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.546
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.053, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 lagMXCj08nte for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com (qw-out-2122.google.com [74.125.92.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97CEB3A6A7F for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 5so490322qwd.31 for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/37lnBfiUQpmagV0BS0ia9jUbxUchgfmz5pvyJcVHR4=; b=wVhKo1Nm+yW67v0vKiw+c2KfPrKXjj4y7MApBAjEm/GVqzGdWnK9KbNDAF/gOOWeEq +l6GJf5OuhbH/r9QKCC9jNK8IYl2N1WlOg3KZ5S61AFbHFZeu37F6ldqbV5BFPedp1CU OhCs2a3ZHMcKfE4N2pz7ogRfhZLtvqFvrRSXI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=WwK0gh5gONeGcW2pMB5YlTjIiOwyARmWqasB4dQto9W9s25nf5ohJEJvJG1NiNLdzZ 1uxWqaPJTlTxmRGHIYuklGG8hVQOJiU64nJ6PcrJ0lZ2z5D+0+PT6h1vaa+1QCD5Wnh3 b4Z/bxp4tZI3JVA15ypYtR5gh1PVM6L45C9Uc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.54.76 with SMTP id p12mr1992540qag.211.1248354900089; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0DEC392632CF41F4A9598069669FE5F7@your029b8cecfe>
References: <4A4A1EFA.6040101@pi.nu> <4A539180.8070807@pi.nu> <000c01ca047e$236e44e0$0601a8c0@allison> <b2d141720907140657l6b348e65v720cacedf7f77034@mail.gmail.com> <4A5C92F8.4070401@pi.nu> <001401ca049c$7d471460$0601a8c0@allison> <1ADC4D4503D34272A6E4571276EB7FD8@your029b8cecfe> <005a01ca0ae9$a46f5d60$0601a8c0@allison> <547F018265F92642B577B986577D671CA7025A@VENUS.office> <0DEC392632CF41F4A9598069669FE5F7@your029b8cecfe>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <amalis@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:14:39 -0400
Message-ID: <b2d141720907230614r54c7c4a9haf6170602297a93c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: mpls-tp@ietf.org, Rolf Winter <Rolf.Winter@nw.neclab.eu>
Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] Uncoordinated Protocl Development Considered Harmful Draft
X-BeenThere: mpls-tp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
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, 23 Jul 2009 13:15:41 -0000

ietf@ietf.org is the proper list for open discussion of
draft-iab-mpls-tp-uncoord-harmful (but please also cc: the iab list).
iab@iab.org is the proper place for private comments to the IAB on
this draft (or any other topic, for that matter).

Thanks,
Andy

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The correct place for this discussion is not here.
>
> draft-iab-mpls-tp-uncoord-harmful is an IAB document and if you want to change what it says you need to discuss it with the IAB. Discussions on this list will have zero impact on the document.
>
> I believe (having discussed this work with the IAB) that the issue they are trying to address is about the future. They want to ensure that future protocol development of overlapping or identical protocol families is coordinated between SDOs. Part of ensuring that is to show what might go wrong. Another part is to show how the issue can be avoided.
>
> Adrian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email