Hi, So far We did not see any justification for two competing solutions for OAM in MPLS-TP. We also did not see what is really missing in the IETF solution and why if something is missing it cannot be resolved in the context of a single solution. IT is not clear why alternative solution is needed. If enhancement is needed, I am sure the IETF would be happy to enhance the solution. There is no justification to confuse the industry with two competing solutions that are defined in two different organizations and may evolve in different and inconsistent way and will not allow two MPLS implementations (ITU and IETF) to co-exist in the same network. What is clear is that unfortunately this is NOT a technical discussion! The industry blessed the agreement between the ITU-T and the IETF and considered it as such a good opportunity for the Industry, incorporating together the expertise of both ITU and IETF organizations, avoiding duplication and inconsistencies. The determination of an alternative solution in the ITU-T for OAM is in contrary to the collaborative agreement between the ITU-T and the IETF. The IETF solution is progressing. The solution will satisfy the transport requirements as were defined together with the ITU-T. Complete interoperability and architectural soundness with MPLS/GMPLS will be guaranteed. The ITU-T SG15 OAM solution will enter the Consultation period where only Governments can respond. The document must be unopposed! The future of the document is uncertain and the process can be very long! Instead of putting so much energy in this political arguments and in the attempt to fragment the Industry, we could positively work together to ensure that the solution we define fully and appropriately satisfies the requirements. It is really a pity! Best regards, Nurit -----Original Message----- From: ext Worley, Dale R (Dale) [mailto:dworley@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 5:10 PM To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon); Huub van Helvoort; Brian E Carpenter Cc: IETF Subject: RE: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS 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