Re: [mpls] For Review: Proposed Liaison Response to SG11

MPLS co-chairs

I have previously said that a response is needed, I think this will what is
covers what is re3quired. Except for the word "lacunae" which I had to
look up, maybe change to "gaps"?

Also I think we should ask OPSAWG if they want to sign this together with
us.

/Loa

> Hi WG,
>
> You may have seen some back and forth on the list with respect to a
> liaison
> statement sent "For Information" to the OPSAWG by ITU-T Study Group 11.
>
> Watching the mailing list, your chairs thought it would be a good idea to
> send a response even though one is not requested or required, and even
> though we were not the original recipients of the incoming liaison.
>
> Our draft is below. We would welcome any thoughts or edits.
>
> The intention is to send this "soon" so it would help if you could respond
> in a timely way.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian for the MPLS Chairs
>
> ===
>
> To: ITU-T-SG-11
> Cc: Denis Andreev <denis.andreev@itu.int>;
> Tatiana Kurakova <tatiana.kurakova@itu.int>;
> Scott Mansfield <Scott.Mansfield@Ericsson.com>;
> mpls@ietf.org; mpls-chairs@ietf.org; itu-t-liaison@iab.org
> Purpose: For Information
> In response to: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1869/
> Subject: Response to your Liaison Statement - LS on the consent of draft
> Recommendation ITU-T Q.3962 (ex. Q.joint_tr) "Requirements and Reference
> Model for optimized traceroute of joint Internet Protocol/Multi-Protocol
> Label Switching"
>
> Body:
>
> Thank you for your Liaison Statement - LS on the consent of draft
> Recommendation ITU-T Q.3962 (ex. Q.joint_tr) "Requirements and Reference
> Model for optimized traceroute of joint Internet Protocol/Multi-Protocol
> Label Switching" dated 2023-10-24. This has been passed on to the MPLS
> working group for consideration.
>
> The MPLS working group would like to thank you for sharing your
> requirements
> as expressed in Q.3962.
>
> Our current understanding of your requirements suggests that all or most
> of
> your requirements can be addressed using existing IP/MPLS OAM tools.
>
> We would welcome all experts to bring these requirements to the IETF's
> MPLS
> working group with a view to working collaboratively on an Informational
> RFC
> that describes how to deliver the function you want to see. Obviously,
> should any lacunae be discovered during this process, the working group
> would also be pleased to engage in additional protocol work to resolve any
> issues.
>
> Kind regards,
> Adrian Farrel MPLS Working Group Co-Chair
> On behalf of the MPLS Working Group and Co-Chairs
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> mpls@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>