All,
I do not support this draft.
As Brian pointed out there is already RFC1958 which addresses the
same issues. So any more time spent on this draft is wasted.
Brian quoted from RFC1958:
This isn't news. I quote from RFC 1958 (June 1996):
3.2 If there are several ways of doing the same
At 09:12 05-10-2011, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG
(codec) to consider the following document:
- 'Guidelines for the Codec Development Within the IETF'
draft-ietf-codec-guidelines-05.txt as an Informational RFC
The IESG plans to
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-
Feng,
I'm not sure how to parse this, but personal attacks on ietf mailing
should at least be substantiated with evidence.
Like been said before we discuss thing over and over and come to an
working group or IETF consensus call, and then the discussion starts
over again.
/Loa
On 2011-10-05
Brian,
The second solution already exists, (300,00+ nodes already deployed - see
other emails on this thread). We must acknowledge this and find the most
cost effective way of allowing interconnection. That is best achieved by
recognizing the Ethernet tool set based solution and defining
Rui,
Excellent point, I fully agree, we need to focus on the 99% that is
identical and not cause the 1% that is different (for good reasons) to
cause a rift that will drive further divergence.
Regards,
Malcolm
Rui Costa rco...@ptinovacao.pt
Sent by: ietf-boun...@ietf.org
05/10/2011 11:06
Dear Loa,
I am sorry if you regard my email is personal attacks, but I think I tell
the truth, here are evidences.
1. Draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations is a personal draft, it ask for
comments in ietf, I have expressed my comments on my previous emails and I
don't support it. (
the ietf, and i hope all sdos, are supposed to provide users with
interoperable multi-vendor choice, not non-interoperable multi-standard
incompatibility.
from a sic year old broadside https://archive.psg.com/051000.ccr-ivtf.pdf
The IETF’s vendor/market approach has engendered a ‘let the
Hi,
Since this topic has diverged somewhat from the IETF last call on
draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations, I have changed the subject line.
2. For MEAD team's decision on OAM, it was recorded in
draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-
analysis as below, but some MEAD members don't agree it, so they
On 05/Oct/11 20:22, SM wrote:
The Abstract mentions that:
While not originally written as an Internet Draft, it has been
contributed to the IETF standards repository in order to make it
easier to incorporate this material into IETF work.
The no derivative clause makes it
On Oct 6, 2011, at 9:32 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On 05/Oct/11 20:22, SM wrote:
The Abstract mentions that:
While not originally written as an Internet Draft, it has been
contributed to the IETF standards repository in order to make it
easier to incorporate this material into IETF
Dear Alessandro,
Lots of thanks for a prompt response.
Unfortunately your response does not really help (at least, me) to identify
even a single
specific technical issue. You may attribute it to my faulty memory,
but I could not remember any. Presenting these cocerns in the form
of an I-D as
Jian,
See in-line.
-Original Message-
From: mpls-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
yang.jia...@zte.com.cn
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 10:54 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org; m...@ietf.org; mpls-bounces@ietf.orgLarry
Subject: [mpls] 答复: 回复： R: FW: Last Call:
Yep. We are going in circles again.
We need to see technical details on the issues documented in an I-D as Stewart
suggested.
Don't remember seeing such document either.
Luyuan
-Original Message-
From: mpls-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Alexander
Dear Phillip Hallam-Baker,
I have some issues with the way that the section on IPR is written.
While I agree with most of the statements there. I don't see my two
biggest IPR concerns listed.
1) Specific to this document, we already have unencumbered CODECs that
permit encoding of audio and
On 5 October 2011 13:25, Phillip Hallam-Baker hal...@gmail.com wrote:
Taken in combination, I cannot imagine any reason to use any audio
codec other than MP3 or AC2 (or some other similar legacy scheme) once
we can be assured that the corresponding patents have expired.
I'm not familiar with
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
Yes/support
Regards,
Jeff
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
I support publication.
Please consider my comments as LC comments.
Regards,
Greg
-- Forwarded message --
From: Greg Mirsky gregimir...@gmail.commailto:gregimir...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM
Subject: Comments to draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations
To:
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:
This document provides a factual and concise summary of work, events,
and points of view that have developed since the JWT, a summary that's
timely and sorely needed as few in the industry outside the project (or
even inside the project) can make sense of it.
It also provides a thorough and
On 2011-10-07 04:01, Adrian Farrel wrote:
...
I am aware that there are comments that an IETF design team should not have
been
shut down without consent from the ITU-T. I find, however, that when the ITU-T
agreed to develop MPLS-TP in cooperation with the IETF within the IETF and
using
Malcolm,
I'm technically incompetent to comment on draft-tsb-mpls-tp-ach-ptn.
However, if we reframe the debate as how to reconcile OaM for
Ethernet-based PTN with OaM for MPLS-TP-based PTN, we might have
a more productive discussion.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2011-10-07 03:00,
Brian,
Thank you for your constructive suggestion.
I will attempt to start a discussion on a new thread in a few days - I am
currently travelling with very limited time windows when I can access the
Internet.
Regards,
Malcolm
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
06/10/2011
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
David Allan I
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 7:05 AM
To: ietf@ietf.org; m...@ietf.org
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: R: FW: Last
Call:draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt (The Reasons
Total of 124 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Oct 7 00:53:02 EDT 2011
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
4.03% |5 | 7.74% |87453 | malcolm.be...@zte.com.cn
4.84% |6 | 3.75% |42375 |
The IESG has received a request from the Email Address
Internationalization WG (eai) to consider the following document:
- 'Internationalized Email Headers'
draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-12.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
The IESG has received a request from the Email Address
Internationalization WG (eai) to consider the following document:
- 'SMTP Extension for Internationalized Email'
draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-14.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
The IESG has received a request from the Email Address
Internationalization WG (eai) to consider the following document:
- 'Internationalized Delivery Status and Disposition Notifications'
draft-ietf-eai-rfc5337bis-dsn-04.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next
The IESG has received a request from the vCard and CardDAV WG (vcarddav)
to consider the following document:
- 'vCard KIND:application'
draft-ietf-vcarddav-kind-app-00.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Email Feedback Report Type Value : not-spam'
(draft-ietf-marf-not-spam-feedback-03.txt) as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Messaging Abuse Reporting Format
Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Pete Resnick and
31 matches
Mail list logo
