Having thought about this for some time, I think I concur with Russ' reasoning
and the allocation should be made.
NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3
6BL | Registered in England 2832014
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org
How does the IETF put a big red warning sign on a document produced by
another standards body?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-07. Actual coloring of
course is impossible.
NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3
6BL | Registered in
Hi,
This is good input and made me realize what I disliked in the document which
made me oppose to its publication. People (rightfully) pressed on the
significance of the document to be about a general principle - one solution to
any given problem. The IETF, _without_ external help, has a
Ross,
See inline.
This is not actually correct. The IETF has a very long history of
pushing back on multiple redundant solutions to the same problem. There
are a great many cases of ADs, working group chairs, and others pushing
quite hard to prevent multiple solutions when one would work
Dave,
could you be more precise about what you think the utility of this document is
in this particular situation. I mean, what will its effect be in the current
situation. What will change after this document has been published. It seems
everybody believes the situation will be resolved once
Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3
6BL | Registered in England 2832014
-Original Message-
From: Loa Andersson [mailto:l...@pi.nu]
Sent: Mittwoch, 5. Oktober 2011 12:48
To: ietf@ietf.org; Rolf Winter
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-
01.txt
use of our time.
Best,
Rolf
NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3
6BL | Registered in England 2832014
-Original Message-
From: Loa Andersson [mailto:l...@pi.nu]
Sent: Mittwoch, 5. Oktober 2011 13:51
To: Rolf Winter
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject
of the statements that
caused dispute on the list.
Best,
Rolf
NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3
6BL | Registered in England 2832014
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Rolf Winter
Sent
Hi,
I think Brian makes an excellent point here. RFC 1958 already contains exactly
the same basic message (just with far less (unnecessary) words). I don't think
we need this document as it doesn't really add anything to what RFC 1958 says.
I'll provide a more detailed review later.
Best,
Hi,
I have made this comment before, I just want to make sure it is not lost. This
draft is proposing a way to specify the length of sub-TLVs that is inconsistent
with RFC 4379. I believe it would be better to align this with 4379 as the
draft is updating it and I see no technical reason why
Hello,
I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's ongoing
effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for
the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors for
their information and to allow them to address any
Hi,
I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's ongoing
effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for
the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors for
their information and to allow them to address any
Hi,
I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's ongoing
effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written primarily for
the transport area directors, but are copied to the document's authors for
their information and to allow them to address any
13 matches
Mail list logo
