IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC on draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def

"t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com> Wed, 02 February 2011 12:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF2353A6BB4 for <opsawg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 04:42:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 I67dsjhrgIBo for <opsawg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 04:42:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.btconnect.com (c2beaomr10.btconnect.com [213.123.26.188]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D7CC3A6CD1 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Feb 2011 04:42:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from host81-152-46-124.range81-152.btcentralplus.com (HELO pc6) ([81.152.46.124]) by c2beaomr10.btconnect.com with SMTP id BNX20460; Wed, 02 Feb 2011 12:46:01 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <010301cbc2ce$3b16e9c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: opsawg@ietf.org, sob@harvard.edu
References: <20110201163021.64DD181FB61@newdev.eecs.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 12:41:20 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Mirapoint-IP-Reputation: reputation=Neutral-1, source=Queried, refid=tid=0001.0A0B0302.4D495208.0137, actions=tag
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaomr10.btconnect.com
X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A0B0203.4D49520A.0172, ss=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=single engine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC on draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 12:42:44 -0000

We did get a liaison from the ITU-T on this I-D, file994.pdf, most of which
seems to have been rejected.  Is this correct?  I never saw any discussion of
the proposed changes on mpls-tp or OPSAWG lists, just the proposed
changes did not get incorporated.

And is this I-D being liaised to the ITU-T now, as part of the IETF-ITU-T JWT
or is it being treated as an IETF matter only?

Tom Petch



----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott O. Bradner" <sob@harvard.edu>
To: <ietfc@btconnect.com>; <opsawg@ietf.org>; <sob@harvard.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC on draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def


> >  I assume that this is still
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-opsawg-mpls-tp-oam-def-07.txt
>
> yup
>
> > How long have we got?
>
> sigh - should have said - two weeks (til feb 14)
>
> Scott

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email