Tom, Please see in line below.
Regards, Malcolm Thomas Nadeau <[email protected]> Sent by: [email protected] 29/09/2011 09:18 AM To [email protected] cc The IESG <[email protected]>, [email protected], IETF-Announce <[email protected]> Subject Re: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC A few more thoughts on this thread. > All, > > I propose to completely remove section 5 of this draft. > > The reason: > > The IETF should *NOT* document any comment on any "multiple standards" > developed by other SDOs which are outside of the IETF's scope. > > Especially standards like like SONET/SDH, CDMA/GSM. > > The current text reflects the author's impressions, and since I don't > believe that the authors were involved in the debates when these > standards were developed, they *DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH* to comment > authoritatively on them. Why do you suddenly think that it is important for only people with knowledge of a topic to contribute to standards? Where does that leave the ITU-T's input on MPLS? I can give you many examples of where people who had no qualification as "experts" in a particular field have contributed to standards, but I will refrain from doing so so as to not "offend other SDOs" as you say below. 8) [MB] This individual draft is now in IETF last call. At this stage it should represent the opinion of those who are experts in the field. Clearly during the development of a draft all interested participants, expert or not, should provide input. > > Best regards, Huub. > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
