Do you mean that ITU-T comments were discussed and resolution agreed during the ITU-T meeting?
If this is the case, why the LS just provides the comments and not the agreed resolution? Why some ITU-T comments have been then rejected? >----Messaggio originale---- >Da: david.i.al...@ericsson.com >Data: 6-lug-2011 19.35 >A: "erminio.ottone...@libero.it"<erminio.ottone...@libero.it>, "l...@pi.nu" <l...@pi.nu>, "Rui Costa"<rco...@ptinovacao.pt> >Cc: "m...@ietf.org"<m...@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org"<ietf@ietf.org>, "IETF- Announce"<ietf-annou...@ietf.org> >Ogg: RE: [mpls] R: Re: Last Call: ><draft-ietf-mpls-tp-cc-cv-rdi-05.txt> (Proactive Connectivity Verification, Continuity Check and Remote Defect indication for MPLS Transport Profile) to Proposed Standard > >Hi Erminio: > >Two of the three document editors were present at SG15 plenary in February where the comments originated. The revised meeting schedule resulted in a day spent going through the document with the editors. IMO there were lots of discussion and legitimate issues with the document identified and corrected so it was a useful session. The liaison of same was in many ways *after the fact*. > >Cheers >Dave > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
