I think your response reads well. Thank you for drafting this and inviting ITU-T to the part in mpls should they want to collaborate further. As an opsawg co-chair, I would be willing to co-sign.
Joe From: Adrian Farrel <adr...@olddog.co.uk> Date: Saturday, March 9, 2024 at 11:45 To: 'OPSAWG' <opsawg@ietf.org> Cc: 'mpls-chairs' <mpls-cha...@ietf.org>, opsawg-cha...@ietf.org <opsawg-cha...@ietf.org>, ops-...@ietf.org <ops-...@ietf.org>, rtg-...@ietf.org <rtg-...@ietf.org> Subject: Proposed Liaison Response to SG11 Hi OPSAWG, The MPLS working group is discussing sending a liaison to ITU-T SG11 in response to their liaison (https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1869/) originally targeted at OPSAWG. If you feel: - OPSAWG should co-sign - MPLS should butt out - edits are needed Please respond to the MPLS chairs copying either mailing list. We do intend moving fairly quickly on this, but will wait until after MPLS has met (IETF Tuesday) before sending anything. Cheers, Adrian (for the MPLS WG chairs) -----Original Message----- From: mpls <mpls-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Adrian Farrel Sent: 08 March 2024 15:37 To: 'mpls' <m...@ietf.org> Cc: mpls-...@ietf.org Subject: [mpls] For Review: Proposed Liaison Response to SG11 Hi WG, You may have seen some back and forth on the list with respect to a liaison statement sent "For Information" to the OPSAWG by ITU-T Study Group 11. Watching the mailing list, your chairs thought it would be a good idea to send a response even though one is not requested or required, and even though we were not the original recipients of the incoming liaison. Our draft is below. We would welcome any thoughts or edits. The intention is to send this "soon" so it would help if you could respond in a timely way. Thanks, Adrian for the MPLS Chairs === To: ITU-T-SG-11 Cc: Denis Andreev <denis.andr...@itu.int>; Tatiana Kurakova <tatiana.kurak...@itu.int>; Scott Mansfield <scott.mansfi...@ericsson.com>; m...@ietf.org; mpls-cha...@ietf.org; itu-t-liai...@iab.org Purpose: For Information In response to: https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1869/ Subject: Response to your Liaison Statement - LS on the consent of draft Recommendation ITU-T Q.3962 (ex. Q.joint_tr) "Requirements and Reference Model for optimized traceroute of joint Internet Protocol/Multi-Protocol Label Switching" Body: Thank you for your Liaison Statement - LS on the consent of draft Recommendation ITU-T Q.3962 (ex. Q.joint_tr) "Requirements and Reference Model for optimized traceroute of joint Internet Protocol/Multi-Protocol Label Switching" dated 2023-10-24. This has been passed on to the MPLS working group for consideration. The MPLS working group would like to thank you for sharing your requirements as expressed in Q.3962. Our current understanding of your requirements suggests that all or most of your requirements can be addressed using existing IP/MPLS OAM tools. We would welcome all experts to bring these requirements to the IETF's MPLS working group with a view to working collaboratively on an Informational RFC that describes how to deliver the function you want to see. Obviously, should any lacunae be discovered during this process, the working group would also be pleased to engage in additional protocol work to resolve any issues. Kind regards, Adrian Farrel MPLS Working Group Co-Chair On behalf of the MPLS Working Group and Co-Chairs _______________________________________________ mpls mailing list m...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
