Hi, I support publication of this document, although I do have some comments on the composition of sections 4 & 5 that I will privately provide the editors.
Yaacov Weingarten -----Original Message----- From: mpls-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Luyuan Fang (lufang) Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 5:24 PM To: John E Drake; David Sinicrope; David Allan I Cc: m...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mpls] R: FW:LastCall: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt>(TheReasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM)toInformational RFC Same here. I support publication of the draft. Luyuan > -----Original Message----- > From: mpls-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > John E Drake > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 7:11 AM > To: David Sinicrope; David Allan I > Cc: m...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [mpls] R: FW: LastCall: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam- > considerations-01.txt> (TheReasons for Selecting a Single Solution for > MPLS-TP OAM) toInformational RFC > > As do I > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of > > David Sinicrope > > Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 7:11 PM > > To: David Allan I > > Cc: m...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org > > 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 > > > > I concur with Dave's comment and support publication of the draft. > > Dave > > > > > > > > On Oct 5, 2011, at 7:06 PM, "David Allan I" > > <david.i.al...@ericsson.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > m...@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls > > _______________________________________________ > > Ietf mailing list > > Ietf@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ > mpls mailing list > m...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list m...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
