Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] R: Re: Draft: Response to Updated draft Recommendation G.tpoam[Ref043.02]
"HUANG Feng F" <Feng.f.Huang@alcatel-sbell.com.cn> Fri, 14 January 2011 00:25 UTC
Return-Path: <Feng.f.Huang@alcatel-sbell.com.cn>
X-Original-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1166F3A6BFB; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:25:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.203
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.733, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_25=0.6, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45]
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 q3DfolJtr2X1; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:25:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cnshjsmin03.alcatel-sbell.com.cn (cnshjsmin03.alcatel-sbell.com.cn [211.144.215.47]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D856628B23E; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:25:07 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: ac189297-b7cc5ae00000285e-eb-4d2f98702f94
Received: from cnshgsbhs01.ad4.ad.alcatel.com (smtp.cn.alcatel-lucent.com [172.24.146.145]) by cnshjsmin03.alcatel-sbell.com.cn (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with SMTP id 6F.FF.10334.1789F2D4; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:27:29 +0800 (HKT)
Received: from CNSHGSMBS01.ad4.ad.alcatel.com ([172.24.146.171]) by cnshgsbhs01.ad4.ad.alcatel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:27:18 +0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CBB381.CD40B1C0"
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:27:17 +0800
Message-ID: <FF8F3C1FD6EDF74CB6DD38B90FDEBADB072B9C1F@CNSHGSMBS01.ad4.ad.alcatel.com>
In-Reply-To: <22AC359C-CD36-4607-87B9-1DE6329096AE@asgaard.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [mpls-tp] R: Re: [mpls] Draft: Response to Updated draft Recommendation G.tpoam[Ref043.02]
Thread-Index: AcuzdzfRunCxMCJNQcivuoBlWMZNxgAB4tmg
References: <24506674.971481294959616690.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> <22AC359C-CD36-4607-87B9-1DE6329096AE@asgaard.org>
From: HUANG Feng F <Feng.f.Huang@alcatel-sbell.com.cn>
To: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE <cdl@asgaard.org>, erminio.ottone_69@libero.it
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jan 2011 00:27:18.0896 (UTC) FILETIME=[CD6F2F00:01CBB381]
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, mpls-tp@ietf.org, stbryant@cisco.com
Subject: Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] R: Re: Draft: Response to Updated draft Recommendation G.tpoam[Ref043.02]
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 00:25:13 -0000
Christopher, I was at the meeting too. Do you forgot that it is in IETF79 plenary in Beijing, the meeting was closed before 5 minutes as it was planed though it was said that itu-t expert can present if time is enough? Do you forgot that IETF ignored ITU-T inputs on some RFCs before approving them as RFCs such as RFC 5921 and draft-ietf-mpls-tp-survivability-framework etc? I am wondering whether IETF have already break the JWT agreement or not? It is right to accuse ITU-T on standardize G.tpoam in the liaison text with agreement. B.R. Feng ________________________________ From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE [mailto:cdl@asgaard.org] Sent: 2011年1月14日 7:11 To: erminio.ottone_69@libero.it Cc: nurit.sprecher@nsn.com; HUANG Feng F; stbryant@cisco.com; mpls@ietf.org; mpls-tp@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] R: Re: [mpls] Draft: Response to Updated draft Recommendation G.tpoam[Ref043.02] Erminio, I was at the meeting, and I did not see anyone denied a chance to approach the mic. I did see a pair of working group chairs struggle to keep a working group on the previously published and agreed upon agenda. The fact that a group of individuals wanted to dramatically change the agenda at the beginning of the meeting would have denied the other groups who had scheduled time from their allotted segments. Having worked in some SG's in the ITU-T as well, I don't believe that behavior would have been any more allowed in an ITU-T meeting, than an IETF one (if anything, the ITU-T process probably would have shut it down faster). Christopher On 14Jan2011, at 10.00, erminio.ottone_69@libero.it wrote: You forget that ITU-T experts have not been allowed to speak at IETF 79 and a new trend of approving RFCs without resolving ITU-T have been started. ----Messaggio originale---- Da: nurit.sprecher@nsn.com Data: 13-gen-2011 13.54 A: "ext HUANG Feng F"<Feng.f.Huang@alcatel-sbell.com.cn>, <stbryant@cisco. com>, <mpls@ietf.org> Cc: <mpls-tp@ietf.org> Ogg: Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] Draft: Response to Updated draft Recommendation G. tpoam[Ref043.02] Hi Feng, You say " HF> I can't image the meaning of cooperation is that ITU-T do nothing and just obey IETF's process!" It seems that you are not familiar with the agreement on the joint work. The ITU-T experts are called to contribute to (also by the SG15) to assist in the development the development of the protocol in the IETF using the IETF standard processes... Best regards, Nurit -----Original Message----- From: ext HUANG Feng F [mailto:Feng.f.Huang@alcatel-sbell.com.cn] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 12:31 PM To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); stbryant@cisco.com; mpls@ietf.org Cc: mpls-tp@ietf.org Subject: RE: [mpls] Draft: Response to Updated draft Recommendation G.tpoam [Ref043.02] Hi, Nurit, Please see in line. B.R. Feng -----Original Message----- From: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) [mailto:nurit.sprecher@nsn. com] Sent: 2011年1月13日 17:45 To: HUANG Feng F; stbryant@cisco.com; mpls@ietf.org Cc: mpls-tp@ietf.org Subject: RE: [mpls] Draft: Response to Updated draft Recommendation G.tpoam [Ref043.02] Hi Feng, I did not refer to specific solution, validity and acceptance of a solution, so I cannot see to what you disagree and how your response fit to mine. If you think that you have a good solution which is proven and supported please discuss it in the IETF and try to get support for it! HF> The solution has been submitted to ietf for 2 year! I would like the ITU-T to continue with its collaborative agreement with the IETF and ensure that the development of the protocol is done as agreed and supported by SG15 using the IETF processes. HF> I can't image the meaning of cooperation is that ITU-T do nothing and just obey IETF's process! I will support a single global solution interoperable solution (whatever the solution is). Best regards, Nurit -----Original Message----- From: ext HUANG Feng F [mailto:Feng.f.Huang@alcatel-sbell.com.cn] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:35 AM To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); stbryant@cisco.com; mpls@ietf. org Cc: mpls-tp@ietf.org Subject: RE: [mpls] Draft: Response to Updated draft Recommendation G.tpoam [Ref043.02] Hi,Nurit, I can't agree with you. Solution of GACH+Y.1731 in G.tpoam is proven work well in Packet Transport Network by many applications and public demo and it has many supporters. I am wondering why this solutions is not standardized in ietf? Further more, I really don't agree with your last sentence, this solution is asked by customers in Industry, you can see at least 7 providers in global support this solution. B.R. Feng -----Original Message----- From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) Sent: 2011年1月13日 16:18 To: stbryant@cisco.com; mpls@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpls] Draft: Response to Updated draft Recommendation G.tpoam [Ref043.02] Hi, I support the proposal. We have a cooperative agreement with the ITU-T concerning the work on MPLS- TP. The agreement recognizes the design authority of the IETF for MPLS and it is agreed that the development of the protocol should be done in the IETF using the IETF processes. The ITU-T should not take any uncoordinated action in the development of the MPLS_TP protocol. We would appreciate if the ITU-T continues (as it committed to) with the collaborative work with the IETF on MPLS_TP and contributes from its expertise to the development of the protocol using the IETF processes. We would also not like to see two competing solutions which may confuse the Industry, bloat operational and capital expenses and badly affect the end customer. Best regards, Nurit -----Original Message----- From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Stewart Bryant Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 12:57 PM To: mpls@ietf.org Subject: [mpls] Draft: Response to Updated draft Recommendation G.tpoam [Ref043.02] I propose to send the following Liaison Response to the ITU-T on Friday 14th January and am posting it to the MPLS WG list for review. ======= Response to Updated draft Recommendation G.tpoam [Ref 043.02] From: IETF Liaison to ITU-T on MPLS stbryant@cisco.com To: tsbsg15@itu.int, greg.jones@itu.int, hiroshi.ota@itu.int, IAB@ietf.org CC: Greg Jones, swallow@cisco.com, loa@pi.nu, paf@cisco.com stbryant@cisco. com, adrian.farrel@huawei.com, mpls@ietf.org yoichi.maeda@ttc.or.jp, steve. trowbridge@alcatel-lucent.com ghani.abbas@ericsson.com, hhelvoort@huawei.com malcolm.betts@zte.com.cn, kam. lam@alcatel-lucent.com For Action The MPLS Working Group notes that this document contains text describing MPLS-TP OAM protocols not designed and standardized using the IETF Standards process. Specifically it uses material from draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-06. We wish to draw your attention to the status section of draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-06 which states: "Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress". Please also note that since the draft filename starts with the prefix string "draft-bhh" this clearly identifies it to the reader as a document expressing the personal technical views of the authors and hence hence as a document that that does not have any acknowledged level of IETF consensus. Since the text of draft Recommendation for G.tpoam is based on an MPLS-TP OAM protocol not designed within the IETF Standards Process this is a breach of the SG15 agreement with the IETF as published in Report of the first meeting of Working Party 3/15 Transport network structures (2009-2012) (Geneva, 1 - 12 December 2008) which can be found at http://www. itu.int/md/T09-SG15-R-0004/en Please confirm that the ITU-T intends to continue with the joint work on MPLS-TP and that the ITU-T will align this recommendation with the IETF MPLS- TP OAM design before advancing this document through the ITU-T publication process. The MPLS Working Group would also like to draw the attention of ITU-T SG15 to the IETF copyright rules. Please see http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/archive/IETF-Trust-License-Policy-2 0091228.htm for further details. Since this draft Recommendation contains text in which the ITU-T SG15 has proposed making changes to IETF protocols without the approval of the IETF, the MPLS Working Group have referred this liaison to the IAB for their consideration. ========= _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list mpls@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _______________________________________________ mpls-tp mailing list mpls-tp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp _______________________________________________ mpls-tp mailing list mpls-tp@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp --- 李柯睿 Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc
- [mpls] R: Re: [mpls-tp] Draft: Response to Update… erminio.ottone_69@libero.it
- Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] R: Re: Draft: Response to Up… Christopher LILJENSTOLPE
- Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] R: Re: Draft: Response to Up… HUANG Feng F