[lacnog] ITU/IETF OAM for MPLS (Fwd: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS)

[Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo]

Volvemos a la debacle OAM ATM Forum vs Routers (celdas F5 ? alguno se
acuerda?), volvemos a layered networks, que es basicamente el problema
que MPLS venia a resolver.

grrr,

s2

Carlos

On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin en gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Interesante que en el artículo de
> http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2011/03.aspx dice:
> "However this crucial technical input was not provided and the IETF’s
> MPLS-TP Interoperability Design Team (MEAD) was unilaterally disbanded by
> IETF in October 2009"
> Pero en un correo reciente en la lista del
> IETF http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg65679.html  :
> "On Monday October 5th an email was sent to mead en ietf.org
> announcing the disbanding of the MEAD team, and that the
> meeting in Munich should not be considered a MEAD team meeting.
> The decision to disband the MEAD team was liaised to the ITU-T
> on the same day (October 5).
> "
> Hagan sus propios juicios.
> Slds,
> .as
> On 3 Mar 2011, at 09:57, Fernando Gont wrote:
>
> FYI, comentarios del chair de la IETF.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: My comments to the press about OAM for MPLS
> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 10:15:05 -0500
> From: Russ Housley <housley en vigilsec.com>
> To: IETF <ietf en ietf.org>
>
> I want the whole community to be aware of the comments that I made to
> the press over the past few days.  Last Friday, the ITU-T Study Group 15
> decided to move forward with an OAM solution that is incompatible with
> the work being done in the IETF MPLS WG.  This is a breach of the
> agreement reached by the IETF and the ITU-T, which is published in RFC 5317.
>
> The ITU-T press release about their action is here:
>  http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2011/03.aspx
>
> On behalf of the IETF, ISOC helped get the word out:
>  http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=3287
>
> The press is starting to cover the story:
>  http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/ietf-slams-itu-standards-vote-22392
>  http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=8B71BD58-1A64-6A71-CE24B4B4EB59B200
>
> And, the ITU-T made a second announcement today:
>
> http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/newslog/Experts+Cast+Doubt+On+Jeopardize+Internet+Statement.aspx
>
> I expect that there will be more press coverage of this unfortunate
> situation.
>
> Thanks,
>  Russ
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf en ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
> _______________________________________________
> LACNOG mailing list
> LACNOG en lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LACNOG mailing list
> LACNOG en lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
>
>



-- 
--
=========================
Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo
http://www.labs.lacnic.net
=========================