[mpls] Liaison Statement: Re: Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-data-plane-03 (Ref #035.02)

IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org> Tue, 27 July 2010 09:07 UTC

Message-ID: <4C4EA1C5.30700@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 05:07:17 -0400
From: IETF Chair <chair@ietf.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tsbsg15@itu.int, greg.jones@itu.int, hiroshi.ota@itu.int
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 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
Subject: [mpls] Liaison Statement: Re: Review of draft-ietf-mpls-tp-data-plane-03 (Ref #035.02)
Precedence: list

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] Liaison Statement: Re: Review of draft-iet… IETF Chair