IMO it is a statement of principle going forward. As such it does not "fix" or "make go away" the current situation, but it would be an IETF consensus position on a way forward. And I agree with that position. Lots of folks do proprietary deployments, squat on code points etc. That cannot be "fixed" either, but I do not believe in rewarding it. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Rolf Winter [mailto:Rolf.Winter@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 6:39 AM To: David Allan I; ietf@xxxxxxxx; mpls@xxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [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 Dave, could you be more precise about what you think the utility of this document is in this particular situation. I mean, what will its effect be in the current situation. What will change after this document has been published. It seems everybody believes the "situation" will be resolved once this document receives its RFC number. I cannot see that. Could you give me more detail? Best, Rolf NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL | Registered in England 2832014 > -----Original Message----- > From: mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:mpls-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf > Of David Allan I > Sent: Donnerstag, 6. Oktober 2011 01:05 > 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 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf