Subject: [mpls-tp] Fwd: Re: [T15Q9] Regarding the questions about the MPLS-TP OAM

From: Huub van Helvoort <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 17:35:03 +0100

FYI,

This is the emal I referred to in my previous message.

Regards, Huub.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [T15Q9] Regarding the questions about the MPLS-TP OAM
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:30:00 +0200
From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
CC: [email-masked], [email-masked], 
[email-masked], [email-masked],  Ad hoc MPLS-TP 
<[email-masked]>

Huub,

I would not support such a liaison - we don't need more
work.

I think that there is a misunderstanding of cause and effect
around the OAM Analysis document.

1. The MEAD team came up with a set of BFD and LSP Ping
    based OAM documents for MPLS-TP OAM, the entire MEAD team
    was invited to that meeting (and you were there).
2. The MPLS working group confirmed this decison a few days
    later at the IETF meeting in Stockholm.
3. The OAM analysis draft captured this, and the decision is
    reflected in the draft.

Nothing to liaise.

/Loa

On 2010-04-19 10:02, [email-masked] wrote:
> All,
>
> Regarding the questions on the Q10/Q9/Q12/Q14 lists and in the meeting last
> week about the selection of the supported OAM tools in the IETF it may be good
> to ask the IETF to liaise draft-ietf-mpls-tp-oam-analysis to the ITU-T to give the
> ITU-T experts an opportunity for an early review of this draft.
>
> I propose to write a liaison to send this request to the IETF.
> Any support?
>
> I will at the same time ask the MPLS WG chairs if it is possible that IETF
> liaises the draft to ITU-T for early review without waiting for the request
> liaison to arrive.
>
> The time for the early review should be chosen carefully to have the least
> impact on the review of other drafts required for June.
>
> Best regards (from Stockholm) , Huub.
>
> --
> ================================================================
>   Always remember that you are unique...just like everyone else...
>

-- 

Loa Andersson                         email: [email-masked]
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [email-masked]
Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
                                              +46 767 72 92 13

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 02:43:48 +0800

All, (working group chair hat off)

please understand that "the liaison" was discussed at this time
referred work going on in the ITU-T to send a liaison to the IETF
to request that the IETF send the OAM Analysis draft for review to
the ITU-T. Not about not progressing the OAM Analysis draft.

My opinion at that time was that we were not ready for this type of
review and we wanted to do further work on this draft before sending
it for this review.

The OAM Analysis document as been updated since that time, and now
serve as a top document mapping required OAM functions to the correct
IETF Internet-Draft.

I've been very careful to make clear when I talked as an employee of
an ITU-T sector member, and as a participant in the IETF and as working
group chair. It is only in my capacity as an employee of an ITU-T sector
member I've participated in discussions on the ITU-T mailing list.

It seems like this was a wasted effort since an ITU-T Rapporteur has
cross-posted mails to ITU-T to IETF mailings lists. This can only cause
confusion.

Based on the mail

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mpls/current/msg05069.html

I sent to the mpls wg, the mpls-tp mailing and the ITU-T Ad Hoc Team on
focusing the working group review effort on a particular set of the
IETF OAM document, it is extremely hard to understand why the working
last call comes as a surprise for anyone.

/Loa

--

---

From: Huub van Helvoort <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 03:29:21 +0100

Hej Loa,

You wrote:

---snip---8<---

> cross-posted mails to ITU-T to IETF mailings lists. This can only cause

[hvh] when I write on the ietf lists I am writing as an IETF
participant and my affiliation and leadership position are
irrelevant.

Regards, Huub.

-- 
**********************************************
                我爱外点一七三一

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 02:15:18 -0500

Loa,

I am confused by some of the statements in your email.  I have snipped the 
message to focus on these points and marked my questions with [MB]. Please 
respond with your WG chair hat on.

Regards,

Malcolm

Loa Andersson <[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked]
07/11/2010 01:43 PM

To
[email-masked]
cc
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Ad hoc MPLS-TP <[email-masked]>, 
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject
Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] Fwd: Re: [T15Q9] Regarding the questions about the 
MPLS-TP OAM

snip >-------------------

[MB start]
Are you suggesting that comments should only be provided either via a 
liaison from ITU-T; or directly on the mpls-tp email list; but never both.
[MB end]

Based on the mail

[MB start] 
Your message talked about focussing the work not about repurposing of the 
OAM analysis draft.  When did you request working group consensus to 
modify the purpose of the document i.e. change it from a historical record 
of the considerations into a list of the tools that have been selected.
[MB end]

> later at the IETF meeting in Stockholm.

[MB start] 
It was my understanding that the IETF uses the mailing list to judge 
consensus, it does not make these decisions in a meeting.  When did you 
call for consensus on the list to confirm this direction.

When did you advise the ITU of this decision
[MB end] 

>--------------- snip to end

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:48:03 +0800

Malcolm, (chair hat of)

I did give advice on how you, ITU-T or anyone else should send comments
on anything document to the IETF.

If I had I would had said that in the interest of efficiency, use only
one channel, but it is entirely up to people to originate the comments.

What I said is that I have to operate in two different contexts, as a
working group chair and an employee of an ITU-T member that sometimes
writes to ITU-T mailing lists.

I would not be appropriate for me to speak as an IETF working group
chair on ITU-T lists, and I taken great care not to mix the contexts.

If someone cross posts my mails between the two context this is bad
behavior.

/Loa

On 2010-11-08 15:15, [email-masked] wrote:
>
> Loa,
>
> I am confused by some of the statements in your email. I have snipped
> the message to focus on these points and marked my questions with [MB].
> Please respond with your WG chair hat on.
>
> Regards,
>
> Malcolm
>
>
>
> *Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>*
> 	"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, Ad hoc MPLS-TP
> <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> Subject
> Your message talked about focussing the work not about repurposing of
> the OAM analysis draft. When did you request working group consensus to
> modify the purpose of the document i.e. change it from a historical
> record of the considerations into a list of the tools that have been
> selected.
> [MB end]
>
>

--

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:58:04 +0800

All,

ooops! - the first sentence should say

"I did not give advice ..."

--