IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mpls] New Liaison Statement, "Response to “MPLS-TP OAM Analysis draft review” (ref # 041.03)"

"Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve)" <steve.trowbridge@alcatel-lucent.com> Wed, 01 December 2010 17:30 UTC

Return-Path: <steve.trowbridge@alcatel-lucent.com>
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 17A303A6C6B; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 09:30:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.309
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.309 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.963, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 WWcd8fLWb8QS; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 09:29:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com (ihemail1.lucent.com [135.245.0.33]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18A383A6C56; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 09:29:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.10]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id oB1HUpLe008080 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:30:51 -0600 (CST)
Received: from USNAVSXCHHUB01.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (usnavsxchhub01.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com [135.3.39.110]) by usnavsmail2.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/GMO) with ESMTP id oB1HUobG031044 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:30:50 -0600
Received: from USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.119]) by USNAVSXCHHUB01.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.3.39.110]) with mapi; Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:30:50 -0600
From: "Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve)" <steve.trowbridge@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com" <Adrian.Farrel@huawei.com>, "'t.petch'" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, "loa.andersson@ericsson.com" <loa.andersson@ericsson.com>, "greg.jones@itu.int" <greg.jones@itu.int>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 11:30:49 -0600
Thread-Topic: [mpls] New Liaison Statement, "Response to “MPLS-TP OAM Analysis draft review” (ref # 041.03)"
Thread-Index: AcuRfK+j0DiUkvliQr+4pjH4SAwHCgAAF6dA
Message-ID: <DDAC0B1C1542D84EAB431B8FE6FCC1CA250873C776@USNAVSXCHMBSA3.ndc.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <067c01cb917c$b28d0670$17a71350$@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <067c01cb917c$b28d0670$17a71350$@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.33
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.64 on 135.3.39.10
Cc: "mpls@ietf.org" <mpls@ietf.org>, "mpls-tp@ietf.org" <mpls-tp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mpls] New Liaison Statement, "Response to “MPLS-TP OAM Analysis draft review” (ref # 041.03)"
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: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:30:00 -0000

Hi Adrian,
Usually we get this right, but occasionally there is a goof -
Interesting that you chose thread 041 for your example, since in sorting out the documents from the ITU TDs, I had noticed that there seem to be two thread 041s:
- on the UNI/NNI document, there is incoming LS TD415/3 (041.01), responded to by TD422/3 Annex 8 (041.02)
- on the OAM analysis draft, there is incoming LS TD411/3 (041.01), responded to by TD423/3 (041.02)
Do we have the wrong thread number on the ITU-T side for one of these, or was 041 inadvertently used for two things?
Regards,
Steve


-----Original Message-----
From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 10:25 AM
To: 't.petch'; loa.andersson@ericsson.com; greg.jones@itu.int
Cc: mpls@ietf.org; mpls-tp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mpls] New Liaison Statement, "Response to “MPLS-TP OAM Analysis draft review” (ref # 041.03)"

Hi Tom,

> nor can I find
> any reference to such a liaison on the lists, nor does the e-mail 
> appear to contain any data, nor can I find the liaison itself.  Given 
> the uselessness of that part of the IETF web site, this last is no 
> surprise, but I would expect to have seen something on both lists.

All liaison statements to and from the IETF can be found at https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/

MPLS-TP liaison statements have a tacking number (e.g. ref # 041.03). So you can search.
For example, searching for "041" finds all four liaisons in the sequence:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/962/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/967/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file1144.pdf
https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/977/

Cheers,
Adrian

_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email