RE: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Given the stiff formality of many of the messages on this topic, and the absence of
description of who did what and why, I suspect the problem is some sort of a split
regarding what approach (or which particular solution) should be taken in OAM for
MPLS.  And that the two factions were probably backed by different commercial interests.
And that one faction had the upper hand within the IETF and the other faction had
the upper hand within the ITU.  The former committee was to provide the ITU faction
with an official or de-facto veto power over the IETF output, so that the ITU faction's
agreement would be required for "IETF consensus".  Eventually, the IETF faction got sick
of the fact that they weren't going to convert the ITU faction to their solution, so the
veto arrangement was summarily terminated from the IETF side, and now the IETF faction
can reach "consensus".

So we will get two standards, one from the IETF and one from the ITU, and the winner
will be determined in the marketplace.  "The great thing about standards is that there
are so many to choose from!"

Dale
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]