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