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

[Nicolas Antoniello]

Es bastante curioso lo cíclica que puede ser la historia y los
acontecimientos... y que cierto que es aquello de que el Hombre es el único
animal que tropieza dos veces (o más) con la misma piedra.

Sobre la IETF, creo que "a rio revuelto, ganancia de pescador"... uds.
sabrán que rio es el que está revuelto y quienes son los pescadores en este
caso.

Saludos,
Nico



On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 16:00, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo <
carlosm3011 en gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> =========================
> _______________________________________________
> LACNOG mailing list
> LACNOG en lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/lacnog
>
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/lacnog/attachments/20110310/f4294de4/attachment.html>