----- Original Message ----- From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <dworley@xxxxxxxxx> To: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <nurit.sprecher@xxxxxxx>; "Huubvan Helvoort" <huubatwork@xxxxxxxxx>; "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: "IETF" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 4:09 PM > 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". That is a very perceptive observation as a study of the e-mails contained in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg05612.html show, especially that of Jing Ruiquan (draft-bhh and Y.1731 being the basis of the favoured ITU-T solution now presented in G.tpoam). Tom Petch > > 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 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf