Re: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

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

 



At 12:42 26-09-2011, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM'
  <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> as an Informational
RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2011-10-24. Exceptionally, comments may be

Given that previous discussions about MPLS-TP raised a few controversies, I wondered what this document was about and why it wasn't a working group document. The document mentions that it is "intended to explain why it would be unwise to standardize multiple solutions for MPLS-TP OAM". And the objective is to determine whether there is IETF Consensus for that.

According the shepherd write-up, this document is an analysis of wider IETF policy and process. Could the document shepherd please clarify what he means by that?

In Section 4.3:

  "The application layer of the Internet is, however, predicated on a
   business model that allows for free or shared software (such as in
   open source developments), and is only possible with the existence of
   a royalty free codec."

I cannot parse the above sentence.

There were some arguments [1] from an IETF participant:

  "The IETF should *NOT* document any comment on any "multiple standards"
   developed by other SDOs"

  "The IETF should refrain from documenting things that might offend
   other SDOs"

I could not find anything offensive.  For example, Section 5.3 mentions that:

  "Sometimes, customers were obliged to obtain an additional device from
   their service providers in order to roam when travelling abroad (for
   example, when travelling from Europe to the U.S)."

There is a cost when the user has to work around such issues.

The IETF already has a policy about inter-SDO impact. Quoting Section 2.2 of RFC 4041:

     "[The IETF] must allow for other moral frameworks and fully
      respect other people's right to subscribe to other belief
      systems.  Such people are, however, wrong and doomed to spend
      eternity in a dark corner with only dial-up access.  So it has
      been written."

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg69674.html
_______________________________________________
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]