Hi, Since this topic has diverged somewhat from the IETF last call on draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations, I have changed the subject line. > 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). You say that some members of the MEAD team did not agree with the recorded decision of the team and quit from the draft. They might have done better to disagree with the draft and to have discussed their concerns on the MPLS working group mailing list. But the main point is that one of the key problems with the MEAD team at this stage was that the discussions were private and did not allow in a wider community opinion of the work. As was complained a number of times, the MEAD team was established to kick-start the work, but was continuing to develop the solutions outside the working group. In practice, had the MEAD team continued any further it would have acted to exclude other participants - in particular it would have prevented participants from the ITU-T from having their fair input through the MPLS working group mailing list. I am sure you agree that that would have been bad. Indeed, you complained in a previous email that decisions had not been explored in public, so the implication is that you really appreciate the closing of the team. IETF participants will more easily find the liaison you refer to at https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/593/ You will note, on reading this liaison, that the reasons given at the time were to specifically to ensure rapid progress and open discussion. This liaison should make it clear to you that the team was closed by the Area Directors and the MPLS working group chair responsible for the team. The team did not (as you suggest in a previous email) disband itself. I am aware that there are comments that an IETF design team should not have been shut down without consent from the ITU-T. I find, however, that when the ITU-T agreed to develop MPLS-TP in cooperation with the IETF within the IETF and using IETF process, it is only to be expected that IETF design teams are managed according to normal IETF practice. Thank you, Adrian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf