I want to make sure the IETF community is aware of this email exchange between myself and Malcolm Johnson, Director of the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Bureau.
Russ Begin forwarded message: > From: Russ Housley <[email protected]> > Date: November 29, 2011 5:45:21 PM EST > To: "Johnson, Malcolm" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: MPLS > > Dear Malcolm: > > Thanks for the note. There are three points that need to made: > > (1) The change in the title of G.8113.1 is a step in the right direction. > Thanks. > > (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. > > (3) As you are well aware, the timeline is quite tight, and delay from any > source will prevent the IETF process from completing by the deadline of 10 > January 2012. No one can predict IETF consensus, but as I have said before, > clarity is vital to avoid delay. > > Regards, > Russ > > > On Nov 25, 2011, at 5:59 AM, Johnson, Malcolm wrote: > >> Dear Russ >> I am pleased to advise you that the SG15 Chairman’s proposed compromise has >> been amended to take account of your comments and has been submitted by the >> government of Japan. I very much hope that this will enable IETF to assign >> the ACh code point which will allow a resolution of this issue and permit us >> to move forward with our collaboration consistent with the JWT agreement. >> The relevant documents are publicly available at: >> http://www.itu.int/oth/T0A0B00000C >> Best regards >> Malcolm >> >> From: Russ Housley [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: 18 November 2011 09:24 >> To: Johnson, Malcolm >> Subject: Re: MPLS >> >> Dear Malcolm: >> >> IETF consensus continues to be required to allocate the code point. My >> experience leads me to believe that careful clarity about the proposed >> content changes to G.8113.1, as well as specific clarity that G.8113.1 is >> not part of MPLS and MPLS-TP, will aid in achieving such a consensus. The >> current situation has engendered quite a bit of ambiguity in wording which, >> in my experience, will not produce IETF consensus. >> >> Russ >> >> >> On Nov 16, 2011, at 7:40 PM, Johnson, Malcolm wrote: >> >> >> Russ >> The proposal in TD527 is intended to change the title and content of >> G.8113.1 to reflect that it describes an alternative OAM mechanism for >> MPLS-TP networks based on Ethernet OAM and is not included as part of the >> MPLS or MPLS-TP protocol suite. Also it is intended to be consistent with >> the JWT agreement and the Newslog article. I am sure the SG15 Chairman would >> be willing to amend his document as necessary to reflect this. On this basis >> could the IETF assign an ACh code point that would be included in >> Recommendation ITU-T G.8113.1? >> Malcolm >> >> >> >> >> From: Russ Housley [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: 15 November 2011 11:23 >> To: Johnson, Malcolm >> Subject: Re: MPLS >> >> Dear Malcolm: >> >> http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/newslog/Statement+Ahead+Of+IETF+Meeting.aspx >> >> Thanks for getting this posted. It has already gotten a lot of visibility. >> >> Just to make sure that we are on the same page, I'd like to repeat two >> things that came up while we were drafting the newslog article. These also >> reflect the IETF's understanding of the newslog article. I'll forward this >> note to the IETF participants to be sure that we're all in sync here. >> >> First, the text of the newslog article re-affirms the JWT agreement from >> 2008 as captured in RFC 5317. In particular, the IETF standards process >> will continue to be used for all MPLS-TP architecture and protocol documents. >> >> Second, since G.8113.1 contains a protocol that is not a product of the IETF >> standards process, it cannot be a part of MPLS-TP according to the >> conditions of the JWT agreement and the newslog article. The IETF >> anticipates one of the following actions will be taken to conform to this >> agreement. Either (1) G.8113.1 will be withdrawn, or (2) the title of >> G.8113.1 will be changed, and the content will be revised to reflect that it >> is not included as part of MPLS or MPLS-TP protocol suite.. >> >> Also, thanks for sending me the TD527/P document from the SG15 Chairman. I >> note that it proposes the progression of both G.8113.1 and G.8113.2 as MPLS >> standards. This approach is not consistent with the JWT agreement or the >> newslog article. >> >> I believe this is a constructive step forward. I look forward to a >> resolution that fully respects the JWT agreement and moves our two >> organizations further toward collaborative standards development. >> >> Russ >> >> >> On Nov 12, 2011, at 5:18 AM, Johnson, Malcolm wrote: >> >> >> >> Thanks Russ >> We will publish first thing Monday. >> Hope you had a good trip and wish you a successful meeting >> Malcolm >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
