Dear Loa,
I am sorry if you regard my email is personal attacks, but I think I tell the truth, here are evidences.
1. Draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations is a personal draft, it ask for comments in ietf, I have expressed my comments on my previous emails and I don't support it. ( You said it is a good draft, please provide the evidence!)
2. For MEAD team's decision on OAM, it was recorded in draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis as below, but some MEAD members don't agree it, so they quit from this draft, you can see change from draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-00 to draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis-02.
"This document reports the conclusions of the MPLS-TP design team
discussions on the MPLS-TP OAM tools at IETF75 and the guidelines
that were agreed. The guidelines refer to a set of existing OAM
tools that need to be enhanced to fully support the MPLS-TP OAM
requirements and identify new tools that need to be defined. The
organizational structure of the documents on MPLS-TP OAM tools was
also discussed and agreed at IETF75 and is described later in this
document."
3. For MEAD team's disband, you can see liaison send to itu recorded in TD218-wp3 (2009-9).
B.R.
Feng
-----Original Message-----
From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@xxxxx]
Sent: 2011年10月6日 20:15
To: HUANG Feng F
Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt>(The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) toInformational RFC
Feng,
I'm not sure how to parse this, but personal attacks on ietf mailing should at least be substantiated with evidence.
Like been said before we discuss thing over and over and come to an working group or IETF consensus call, and then the discussion starts over again.
/Loa
On 2011-10-05 13:58, HUANG Feng F wrote:
> Loa,
> YES, but there are only someone (not organization-that's a individual draft and MEAD team-not ietf mpls group or ietf group, which has been disbanded by themselves one years ago) make decision to done a single solution!
> B.R.
> Feng
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loa Andersson [mailto:loa@xxxxx]
> Sent: 2011年10月5日 19:53
> To: HUANG Feng F
> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Last
> Call:<draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt>(The Reasons
> for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) toInformational RFC
>
> Feng,
>
> there were only one organization invbolved in the decision to develop two OAM solutions!
>
> /Loa
>
> On 2011-10-05 13:29, HUANG Feng F wrote:
>> Dear Loa,
>> Life is not simple, mpls-tp is joint developed by IETF and ITU-T, so it is complicated, the decision should be done by two orgnizations.
>> There are many errors about in this draft as many, for example, Rolf, Huub, Malcolm, Tom Petch and I, point out in emails, it is a bad draft, it should be stop.
>> B.R.
>> Feng
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf
>> Of Loa Andersson
>> Sent: 2011年10月5日 18:48
>> To: ietf@xxxxxxxx; Rolf Winter
>> Subject: Re: Last
>> Call:<draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt>(The Reasons
>> for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) toInformational RFC
>>
>> Rolf,
>>
>> are you saying that if we just liaise RFC1958 to the ITU-T they will stop developing a competing OAM for MPLS?
>>
>> Sometimes the life is simple, though I doubt that it is this simple.
>>
>> My 2c's is that this a good draft and should be progressed.
>>
>> /Lao
>>
>> On 2011-10-04 11:16, Rolf Winter wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I think Brian makes an excellent point here. RFC 1958 already contains exactly the same basic message (just with far less (unnecessary) words). I don't think we need this document as it doesn't really add anything to what RFC 1958 says. I'll provide a more detailed review later.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rolf
>>>
>>>
>>> NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road,
>>> London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On
>>>> Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
>>>> Sent: Freitag, 30. September 2011 21:48
>>>> To: huubatwork@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
>>>> Subject: 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
>>>>
>>>> Huub,
>>>>
>>>> On 2011-09-30 20:19, Huub van Helvoort wrote:
>>>>> All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Section 1,1 also contains the text:
>>>>> [RFC5317] includes the analysis that "it is technically
>>>>> feasible
>>>> that
>>>>> the existing MPLS architecture can be extended to meet the
>>>>> requirements of a Transport profile, and that the
>>>>> architecture
>>>> allows
>>>>> for a single OAM technology for LSPs, PWs, and a deeply nested
>>>>> network."
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a quote from slide 113 in the PDF version of RFC5317 and
>>>> should
>>>>> be read in realtion to the statement on slide 12 of the same RFC:
>>>>>
>>>>> "This presentation is a collection of assumptions, discussion points
>>>>> and decisions that the combined group has had during the months of
>>>>> March and April, 2008
>>>>> This represents the *agreed upon starting point* for the technical
>>>>> analysis of the T-MPLS requirements from the ITU-T and the MPLS
>>>>> architecture to meet those requirements"
>>>>>
>>>>> So the quoted text in the draft is one of the assumptions.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that there are currently *two* OAM mechanisms (and not a
>>>>> *single*), i.e. one for PW and one for LSP proves that the
>>>>> assumption was not correct.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry, I don't understand your logic. You seem to be saying
>>>> that the fact that two solutions have been designed proves that the
>>>> assumption that a single solution is possible was false. That
>>>> doesn't follow at all. The engineering profession has a long
>>>> history of producing multiple solutions where a single one was
>>>> possible, and this seems to be just another such case.
>>>>
>>>> This isn't news. I quote from RFC 1958 (June 1996):
>>>>
>>>> " 3.2 If there are several ways of doing the same thing, choose one.
>>>> If a previous design, in the Internet context or elsewhere, has
>>>> successfully solved the same problem, choose the same
>>>> solution unless
>>>> there is a good technical reason not to. Duplication of the same
>>>> protocol functionality should be avoided as far as possible, without
>>>> of course using this argument to reject improvements."
>>>>
>>>> Brian
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ietf mailing list
>>>> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ietf mailing list
>>> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>>
>
--
Loa Andersson email: loa.andersson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager loa@xxxxx
Ericsson Inc phone: +46 10 717 52 13
+46 767 72 92 13
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf