Hi all,
I concur with both parts of Dave's message :-( and support publication of the draft.
I have an editorial/factual comment regarding Section 4.2 of the draft.
Let's begin with the fact that SAToP (i.e. RFC 4553) is not a Draft Standard, it is a Proposed Standard RFC.
Further, I am not sure that the relationship between SAToP and other TDM PW modes - CESoPSN (RFC 5086) and TDMoIP (RFC 5087) - is correctly described in Section 4.2 of the draft. At least neither RFC 5086 not RFC 5087 contain any explicit statements about SAToP as the "MUST to implement" protocol.
My 2c,
Sasha
________________________________________
From: mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Allan I [david.i.allan@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 1:05 AM
To: ietf@xxxxxxxx; mpls@xxxxxxxx
Subject: [mpls] R: FW: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC
I think it is unfortunate that we are in a situation where such a document has utility. But ultimately it does.
Therefore I support the publication of draft-sprecher...
D
> MPLS Working Group,
>
> Please be aware of the IETF last call as shown below. The document was
> presented for publication as an individual RFC with IETF consensus and
> AD sponsorship.
>
> This draft is clearly close and relevant to the work you do, but after
> discussing with the chairs I came to the conclusion that it does not
> comment on the technical or process decisions of the MPLS working
> groups, and it does not attempt to make any technical evaluations or
> definitions within the scope of the MPLS working group. It is more of
> a philosophical analysis of the way the IETF approaches the "two
> solutions" problem with special reference to MPLS-TP OAM.
>
> Thus, I am accepting the document as AD Sponsored rather than running
> it through the MPLS working group. My reasoning is that the working
> group has got plenty to do working on technical issues without being
> diverted into wider IETF philosophy.
>
> As an AD Sponsored I-D it is subject to a four week IETF last call.
> That is plenty of opportunity for everyone to comment and express
> their views. Please send your comments to the IETF mailing list as
> described below, or (in exceptional circumstances) direct to the IESG.
>
> Thanks,
> Adrian
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
This e-mail message is intended for the recipient only and contains information which is CONFIDENTIAL and which may be proprietary to ECI Telecom. If you have received this transmission in error, please inform us by e-mail, phone or fax, and then delete the original and all copies thereof.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf