As mentioned, I proposed you listen to the record…it will help you refreshing your memory! You may want to listen also to Final and U.K….and I propose you listen again also to what U.S said… There was also a note on the huge effort to find a compromise that did not work out….:-( From: ext HUANG Feng F [mailto:Feng.f.Huang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 1:59 PM To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) Cc: ext Huub helvoort; Russ Housley; Malcolm.BETTS@xxxxxxxxxx; ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx; draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; mpls@xxxxxxxx; adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Questions about draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point Nurit, Yes, you can memory the record, US stated because of lacking of ACH code point, they don't support it, other 3 states support US as same position. So the origin is lack of ACH code point. The liaison recorded the ITU-T status too. Best Regard Feng Huang OPD, Alcatel Lucent Shanghai Bell 86-21-50554550-5515 在 2011-12-21，19:32，"Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <nurit.sprecher@xxxxxxx> 写道： Feng, I do not care about the liaison…the liaison was not sent by the member states… I care about the reasons that member states gave when they opposed G.8113.1. The main reason was "lack of consensus"…. But I propose that everyone that have TIES access listen to the audio of the meeting and judge it… Best regards, Nurit From: ext HUANG Feng F [mailto:Feng.f.Huang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 1:29 PM To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon) Cc: ext Huub helvoort; Russ Housley; Malcolm.BETTS@xxxxxxxxxx; ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx; draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; mpls@xxxxxxxx; adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Questi! ons about draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point! Nurit, You left Plenary too early and when it was not closed, ITU has decided to send a Liasion to IETF on this issue the draft of G.8113.1 is stable, the only reason is lack of Ach code point, you can see liaison from ITU-T. Best Regard Feng Huang OPD, Alcatel Lucent Shanghai Bell 86-21-50554550-5515 在 2011-12-21，19:00，"Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)" <nurit.sprecher@xxxxxxx> 写道： Huub hi, I was in the closing plenary, and I heard different reasons for not approving G.8113.1. The main argument that I heard was because of lack of consensus. ! Best regards, Nurit From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext Huub helvoort Sent: Wedn! esday, December 21, 2011 12:51 PM To: Russ Housley; Malcolm.BETTS@xxxxxxxxxx Cc: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx; adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx; draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; mpls@xxxxxxxx Subject: RE: Questions about draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point Hello Russ, You wrote: > My understanding is that there is not a stable agreed G.8113.1 document to reference. > Is my understanding incorrect? Your understanding is partially incorrect: The draft recommendation G.8113.1 is stable, there have been no major technical changes since it was sent to the IETF (when it still had the draft name G.tpoam) attache to liaison: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/983/ This is also the status I reported when we did discuss this during IETF82 in Taipei. G.8113.1 could not be approved because of the technical reason that there is no ACh codepoint assigned. Best regards, Huub. ====== On Dec 20, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Malcolm.BETTS@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: Hi Adrian, Thank you for finding time to respond to this request. As ! you know I was attending the same 2 week SG 15 meeting and was! probabl y at least as busy as you given my official role in the meeting. I will update draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point early in the new year based on the results of SG 15 the ended last Friday and your comments. I will also discussan update of the shepherd write up with Huub. Regards, Malcolm "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx 09/12/2011 05:49 AM Please respond to adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx To <draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Huub helvoort'" <huub.van.helvoort@xxxxxxxxxx> cc mpls@xxxxxxxx, ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject Questions about draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point Hi Malcolm and Huub, I have squeezed a little time from the current ITU-T meeting to look at your draft and write-up. I have also read the email threads on the IETF discussion list and the MPLS list. Sorry that this has taken me a week to process, but your publication request came at pretty much the worst possible time for getting me to do this task. I don't like proliferating threads across multiple mailing lists. On the other hand it is difficult to ensure that all the constituencies are present, so I am perpetuating the cross-posting. My review of the document... 1. idnits (http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ <http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/> ) shows a couple of nits. I think only one of these is real (the spurious space in a citation). The other nits are spurious caused by citations wrapping across lines. Could you please keep a note of the nit so that you can fix it the next time the draft is respun or so it can! be captured in an RFC Editor Note at a later stage (you don't have to post a new revision to address this now unless you really want to). 2. This document requests a code point from a registry that contains code points that are used equally for MPLS LSPs and pseudowires. I can't tell from the I-D whether it is your intention that your code point would also be applicable in both cases. What is your intention? Is this "obvious" from G.8113.1 or does it need to be clarified? My review of the write-up and discussions... 3. There seems to be quite a feeling on the mailing lists that this document should be run through the MPLS working group. The write-up makes a case for progressing it as AD ! sponsored. As far as I can see, the main assertions to answer are as follows. Do you have a view on these points before I make a decision on what to do? a. This is a proposal to use an MPLS code point and so is part of MPLS by definition. b. The type of network being managed by the OAM described in G.8113.1 is an MPLS netw ork. Therefore, this is clearly relevant to the MPLS working . Do you object to this going through the MPLS on principle, or were you just hoping to save the WG the work? If the latter, and if the WG wants to look at the draft, the easiest approach seems to be to redirect the work to the working group. 4. G.8113.1 is clearly important to understanding to which the code poin! t is being put. Thus, an available and stable copy of group. G.8113.1 will be key to the last call review of you I-D. Can you make a stable copy available (for example, through liaison)? How does the editing work currently in progress in the SG15 meeting affect that availability? 5. Can you clarify for me why the suggested value has been suggested. This will! help guide IANA who would normally do their allocation in a "tidy" way. Looking forward to your reply. Thanks, Adrian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf> _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf! .org <mailto:Ietf@xxxxxxxx> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf