Re: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02

["Brian Moore" <brian@bwmc.demon.co.uk>]

[ post by non-subscriber ]

Neil,
Just to let you know that we (SG13) have set up an ftp site to allow us to
share documents with our IETF colleagues. The process for registering for
access is described on the site
(http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/com13/ip/sg13-ietf-ftp.html).
The draft Rec Y.1711 is on the site.
Brian.

B W Moore
Lucent Technologies
bmoore1@lucent.com
Tel: +44 1206 762335
Fax: +44 1206 762336
----- Original Message -----
From: <neil.2.harrison@bt.com>
To: <sjtrowbridge@lucent.com>
Cc: <ccamp@ops.ietf.org>; <bmoore1@lucent.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 10:08 PM
Subject: RE: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02


> Thanks Steve....nice to hear a voice of sanity.
>
> Just FYI.....many people from various IETF lists have privately asked me
for
> copies of Y.1711 (and/or Y.1710 - requirements/principles) and I have have
> passed them on.  Also SG13 have sent formal liaisons to IETF/ATMF/MPLSF on
> these already.  If anyone else wants a copy until such time they become
> publically available please ask me and I'll do my best to post on.....but
be
> prepared for a little delay as I'll be travelling from tomorrow for a week
> or so.
>
> As an aside.....this ITU/IETF bickering is really helping nobody here.
Each
> side can learn from the other.  I get really sad when I see destructive
> comments about the G.805 layering/partitioning arch
> stuff......why?....because its how we all actually work even if some of us
> don't actually consciously recognise it.  G.805 just gives it a formal
> base....and its a damn sight more useful than the almost useless L1/2/3
> classifications (which mean nothing) and the OSI model which gives the
> illusion there is only *one* layer network (at L3, OSI sense)....absolute
> bunkum.  G.805 matches reality.  Give it a shot.
>
> regards, Neil
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Trowbridge [mailto:sjtrowbridge@lucent.com]
> > Sent: 28 February 2002 17:28
> > To: Shahram Davari
> > Cc: 'erosen@cisco.com'; 'Randy Bush'; Cuevas, Enrique G, ALASO;
> > ccamp@ops.ietf.org; Brian Moore
> > Subject: Re: draft-bonica-tunneltrace-02
> >
> >
> > (snip)
> > > Why? Simply because it is produced by ITU is not a logical
> > way to dismiss it.
> > > Do you think the ITU architecture is wrong and if so why?
> > and what architecture
> > > (if any!) do you suggest that the requirements and
> > solutions should fit in to?
> > ITU and IETF do have a formal cooperation agreement. This
> > does not mean that
> > either organization needs to do what the other says, but in
> > the event IETF were
> > to choose to diverge, it would at least be polite to send a
> > communication to
> > the relevante ITU-T study group (in this case, SG13) to
> > indicate why. ITU-T
> > input should at least be given serious consideration.
> >
> > > As has been stated these are to a
> > > large extent documented in the (sadly too new to get at for
> > free) documents
> > > Y.1711/Y.1710 but were in the now expired though surely google-able
> > > draft-harrison...
> > My understanding is that these should be made available to
> > IETF through a
> > public ftp site in the next few days. Material from Study
> > Group 15 has been
> > shared in this way in the past. A similar mechanism is now
> > being set up for
> > Study Group 13.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Steve Trowbridge
> >
>