----- Original Message ----- From: "Weingarten, Yaacov (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <yaacov.weingarten@xxxxxxx> To: <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; "t.petch" <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: "Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <nurit.sprecher@xxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 9:04 AM Tom you wrote on 3 Dec: " I would commend to you the e-mail that Russ posted here 30Nov2011 ... so claiming what is and is not part of MPLS-TP calls for some thought." I would suggest that you also read the following from the same e-mail from Russ to Malcolm Johnson: "(2) I do not see acknowledgement of the necessary changes to the content of G.8113.1 that address my earlier comments. The Japanese document indicates that the content to be revised to reflect that G.8113.1 is not included as part of MPLS or MPLS-TP. I anticipate technical changes, not just the inclusion of a statement that G.8113.1 is not part of MPLS or MPLS-TP." Which makes me understand that in Russ's opinion, and certainly in the opinion of many other IETF attendees, that your conclusion of "The deadline would appear to be 12Jan2012 which Malcolm and Huub would appear to have provided us with the wherewithall to meet." is incorrect at the moment <tp> Right, and in the .pdf referenced in that e-mail, I see <quote> From: Johnson, Malcolm Sent: 01 December 2011 10:27 To: 'Russ Housley' Subject: RE: MPLS Dear Russ (1) I am pleased that we seem to have the title sorted. (2) I attached a contribution which proposes amendments to the determined text in COM15-R22. This includes the title change and makes changes to the terminology throughout the document. What had previously been called "MPLS-TP OAM" is now never referred to as such, but simply as "OAM" or "data-plane OAM". As you can see there is a willingness to satisfy all the IETF concerns but if there is still something else in the body of the draft Recommendation that causes concern could you please specify what exactly it is so it can be addressed? (3) I am not aware of any delay from ITU side. If there is anything that needs to be done from our side to expedite the last call so that the code point can be assigned by 10 January please let me know. Regards Malcolm </quote> so if you see something the IETF is lacking, then we should raise that forthwith. Reading the I-D, it seems to have the necessary information for an allocation as called for in RFC4929, and it is then a question of cranking the right handles in the IETF (we are not being asked to approve anything else, such as G.8113.1:-). Tom Petch </tp Best regards, Yaacov Weingarten Nokia Siemens Networks Industry Environment, PTE ph#: +972-9-775 1827 mob#: +972-54-220 0977 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf