[mpls] Liaison Statement: LS206 - Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-12 (Ref #034.02)

[IETF Chair <[e-mail]>]

Thank you for your liaison COM15-LS206-E, Review of
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-12 (Ref #034.01) dated 24-June-2010.

We regret that the ITU-T was unable to review
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-framework-12 within the requested time. It should be
noted that participants in SG15 had the same amount of time to review
this document as other members of the MPLS-TP design community. The
ITU-T participants were therefore afforded no less privilege in the
review cycle than any other group of participants.

This document completed IETF last call with IETF consensus on
21-April-2010. It was reviewed by the IESG on 20-May-2010 and was
approved for publication as an RFC on 24-May-2010. In response to the
requirements of the ITU-T, this document was expedited in the RFC
Editor's queue and was published as RFC 5921. The text of the published
RFC cannot be changed.

We note that the ITU-T's requests (cf. COM15-LS205-E) to expedite the
development of IETF solutions is not consistent with the request for
additional review time. We suggest that the best way to expedite the
MPLS-TP work is through a full involvement with the standards
development process. This will facilitate earlier input to the
documents and mean that the final review can be completed in the time
available.

We understand the requirements under Recommendation A.5 and we encourage
ITU-T participants who are worried about the issues of referenced
documents to become involved in the development of those documents
earlier in the cycle and throughout the IETF process.

This document completed IETF last call with IETF consensus on
21-April-2010. It was reviewed by the IESG on 20-May-2010 and was
approved for publication as an RFC on 24-May-2010. In response to the
requirements of the ITU-T, this document was expedited in the RFC
Editor's queue and was published as RFC 5921. Obviously, the text of the
published RFC cannot be changed.

Regarding your requested changes these were evaluated and processed as
follows:

Section 3.4.3:

The additional text that you propose is a duplication of the previous
sentence where it already says that the UNI is between the CE and the
MPLS-TP network. It was not considered appropriate to make such a change
at this stage in the process.

Figures 3 and 5:

These changes are of technical substance and would have required IETF
consensus to implement. They were not therefore accepted at this stage
in the process.

Section 3.4.5, page 32;
Section 3.7, pages 36 and 37;
Section 3.13, page 45;
Section 3.13, page 46:

These four cases were communicated informally to the responsible IETF
Area Director during your plenary and were included as a late change by
the RFC Editor as they were purely minor editorial in nature. Thus, they
are already included in the published RFC.

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