[mpls-tp] Fwd: Liaison Statement: Re: Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-data-plane-03 (Ref #035.02)
Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Wed, 28 July 2010 13:01 UTC
Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.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 EC3FB28C176 for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:01:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.58
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 87gnHAmGtxSD for <mpls-tp@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:01:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6234C28C139 for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:01:56 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag8GAJ7HT0xAZnwM/2dsb2JhbACfbWsGiBmdSYIICwGZBYU2BIhx
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.55,274,1278288000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="140215888"
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Jul 2010 13:02:14 +0000
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.71.48]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6SD2E3i011022 for <mpls-tp@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:02:14 GMT
Received: from dhcp-24f9.meeting.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.11.7p3+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id o6SD2C626805; Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:02:13 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <4C502A54.4000906@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:02:12 +0100
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "mpls-tp@ietf.org" <mpls-tp@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090908020809020809010508"
Subject: [mpls-tp] Fwd: Liaison Statement: Re: Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-data-plane-03 (Ref #035.02)
X-BeenThere: mpls-tp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
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: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:01:58 -0000
Forwarding to the mpls-tp list. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Liaison Statement: Re: Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-data-plane-03 (Ref #035.02) Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 05:07:17 -0400 From: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org> To: tsbsg15@itu.int, greg.jones@itu.int, hiroshi.ota@itu.int CC: swallow@cisco.com, mpls@ietf.org, steve.trowbridge@alcatel-lucent.com, malcolm.betts@zte.com.cn, IETF Liaison Statements <statements@ietf.org>, yoichi.maeda@ntt-at.co.jp, rcallon@juniper.net, paf@cisco.com, adrian.farrel@huawei.com, iesg@ietf.org, stbryant@cisco.com, loa@pi.nu Thank you for your liaison COM15-LS207-E (ref 35.01) dated 24-June-2010 providing further review comments on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-data-plane. This document completed IETF last call on 14-June-2010 and received IETF consensus. The document was reviewed by the IESG on 17-June-2010 and received approval for publication subject to some minor modifications. Documents in the RFC Editor's queue are only open for minor editorial changes. We have examined the changes proposed by the ITU-T and have formed the following view: Proposed change on page 8: This change is of technical substance, and cannot be made to a document in the RFC Editor's Queue. Proposed change to Section 6: The terms "peer" and "neighbor" are well understood within the IETF and do not need further clarification. The proposed description of the application scenario constitutes a change of technical substance, and cannot be made to a document in the RFC Editor's Queue. If IETF contributors feel that there is an issue to be resolved, there are two processes that are available to make changes to published RFCs. One method is to submit an Erratum Notice using the IETF web pages (http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php). The other method is to produce a revision or modification to the published RFC by submitting an Internet-Draft and taking it through the IETF consensus process. Both methods are subject to review before approval. On behalf of the IESG, Russ Housley
- [mpls-tp] Fwd: Liaison Statement: Re: Review of d… Stewart Bryant