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
While it is not perfect, I too support publication...
W
On Oct 5, 2011, at 7:11 PM, David Sinicrope wrote:
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
Hi all,
I concur with both parts of Dave's message :-( and support publication of the
draft.
I have an editorial/factual comment regarding Section 4.2 of the draft.
Let's begin with the fact that SAToP (i.e. RFC 4553) is not a Draft Standard,
it is a Proposed Standard RFC.
Further, I am not
IMO it is a statement of principle going forward. As such it does not fix or
make go away the current situation, but it would be an IETF consensus
position on a way forward. And I agree with that position.
Lots of folks do proprietary deployments, squat on code points etc. That cannot
be fixed
IMO it is a statement of principle going forward. As such it does not
fix or make go away the current situation, but it would be an IETF
consensus position on a way forward. And I agree with that position.
Lots of folks do proprietary deployments, squat on code points
etc. That cannot be
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-
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
On 05/10/2011 10:38, D'Alessandro Alessandro Gerardo wrote:
major unresolved technical concerns
Alessandro
Please can I suggest that you write an internet draft detailing
these major unresolved technical concerns so that we
can all understand them.
Such a draft needs to be technical, and
Alessandro, Stewart and all,
I concur with Stewart: please write a draft detailing your major technical
concerns.
I'd like to add a quote from Malcolm's presentation at the IETF meeting in
Prague:
Differences between the solution approved by the IETF and its ITU-T
sponsored
Dear all,
So many multiple solution cases just show the way that the world and
technology works. Killing a solution roughly brings more damage to the industry.
Section 3.6 discusses the elements of the choice of solutions. Current
application and deployment should be considered. In
Dear Stewart,
Many thanks for your answer that anyway I do not believe addresses the root
concern I have on the proposed draft.
I would avoid bringing technical discussions into this thread because it is a
declared intent of the draft in the object to NOT touch such aspects. I'm
therefore
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
