This liason, https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/983/, includes the following statement:

"At the Berlin interim meeting on MPLS-TP further work was undertaken on the development of the OAM Recommendation G.tpoam. This version was developed using all of the relevant input documents to the meeting and is based on draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-06. We invite your comments on this document."

So your statement may be factually correct but misleading. 

Sent from my iPhone


> -----Original Message-----
> From: mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-tp-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Huub van Helvoort
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:33 PM
> To: mpls@ietf.org; mpls-tp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] Draft: Response to Updated draft
> Recommendation G.tpoam [Ref043.02]
> 
> Hello Stewart,
> 
> You asked:
> 
> > Does anyone disagree with the statement that David makes?
> 
> I disagree with this statement in relation to this liaison.
> 
> The draft recommendation G.tpoam that was sent for review does
> not contain a reference to draft-bhh at all.
> 
> Also the statements about validity and copyright are irrelevant.
> 
> Regards, Huub.
> 
> 
> ==============
> > On 13/01/2011 17:09, David Sinicrope wrote:
> >> It seems that reference and use of draft-bhh is in violation of the
> >> ITU-T external cooperation agreement "Referencing A.5 Qualified
> >> Organizations" text found at
> >> http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/extcoop/Pages/sdo.aspx under the
> >> Referencing IETF Documents link.
> >> In particular clause 10 of this document states: (See 2nd sentence.)
> >>
> >> "10 Other: If a study group decides to make the reference to an IETF
> >> RFC, the reference should always be made by RFC number (and not by
> >> other designations such as STD, BCP, etc.). References should not be
> >> made to documents referred to as "Internet Drafts" or to IETF RFCs
> >> categorized as Historic or Experimental. Normative references must
> >> only be made to IETF RFCs that are Standards Track or to
> Informational
> >> RFCs that have IETF consensus."
> >>
> >> Is this not correct? If correct, shouldn't this also be pointed out
> in
> >> the liaison?
> >> Dave
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> >> Of Stewart Bryant
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:27 AM
> >> To: mpls@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [mpls] [mpls-tp] Draft: Response to Updated draft
> >> Recommendation G.tpoam [Ref043.02]
> >>
> >> Exactly Ben.
> >>
> >> The Liaison is list of statements of relevant facts, and none of the
> >> contra points dispute those facts.
> >>
> >> Stewart
> >>
> >> On 13/01/2011 15:41, Ben Niven-Jenkins wrote:
> >>> Larry,
> >>>
> >>> On 13 Jan 2011, at 14:55, Larry wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think it is proper to send the LS to ITU-T because the
> text
> >>>> doesn't reflect the requirement from providers.
> >>>> Apparently, draft-bhh based OAM is the most mature solution
> >>>> currently. It has been proved by more than 200,000 applications
> and
> >>>> is supported by a lot of operators and vendors.
> >>>>
> >>> That may or may not be true, but either way it is irrelevant to the
> >>> liaison.
> >>>
> >>> ITU liaised G.tpoam to IETF. The liaison response Stewart has
> drafted
> >>> points out that G.tpoam uses technology (draft-bhh) that is not
> >>> endorsed by IETF consensus and points to some risks of doing so,
> >>> including breach of a prior ITU-IETF agreement on how to progress
> >>> MPLS-TP development.
> >>>
> >>> Everything in the liaison is fact. Whether draft-bhh is
> >>> good/bad/ugly, deployed, supported by operators, etc. is
> irrelevant,
> >>> it is not endorsed by IETF as a MPLS-TP OAM solution and all the
> >>> liaison does is point out that fact.
> >>>
> >>> FWIW this isn't the first time a group of operators have brought a
> >>> proposal to IETF only to find that the IETF has decided to do
> >>> something else, and I'm sure it won't be the last.
> >>>
> >>> Ben
> >>>
> >>> P.S. for some reason email chains related to draft-bhh remind me of
> >>> this Dilbert cartoon http://www.dilbert.com/2010-12-22/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> Han Li
> >>>>
> >>>>
> *********************************************************************
> >>>> ****
> >>>> Han Li, Ph.D
> >>>> China Mobile Research Institute
> >>>> Unit 2, 28 Xuanwumenxi Ave, Xuanwu District, Beijing 100053, China
> >>>> Fax: +86 10 63601087
> >>>> MOBILE: 13501093385
> >>>>
> *********************************************************************
> >>>> ****
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --- 11年1月13日，周四,
> >>>> ruiquan.jing@ties.itu.int<ruiquan.jing@ties.itu.int>
> >>>> 写道：
> >>>>
> >>>>> 发件人: ruiquan.jing@ties.itu.int<ruiquan.jing@ties.itu.int>
> >>>>> 主题: Re: [mpls-tp] [mpls] Draft: Response to Updated draft
> >>>>> Recommendation G.tpoam [Ref043.02]
> >>>>> 收件人: jingr@ties.itu.ch
> >>>>> 抄送: mpls-tp@ietf.org
> >>>>> 日期: 2011年1月13日,周四,下午4:09
> >>>>> Resend to mpls-tp list.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Quoting jingr@ties.itu.ch:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Stewart Bryant,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don’t agree with the current LS text.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> China Telecom support the standardization of Y.1731
> >>>>> based MPLS-TP OAM tools
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>> the ITU-T to meet the urgent and increasing
> >>>>> requirements for PTN deployment.
> >>>>>> It’s a multi-vendor supported, interoperability
> >>>>> certificated and feasible
> >>>>>> solution. It had been specified in both CCSA
> >>>>> (China Communications Standards
> >>>>>> Association) and China Telecom’s PTN standard as the
> >>>>> only standard OAM
> >>>>>> mechanism.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best Regards
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jing Ruiquan
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> China　Telecom Beijing
> >>>>> Research　Institute
> >>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> >>>>> ----------
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>> From: mpls-bounces@ietf.org
> >>>>> [mailto:mpls-bounces@ietf.org]
> >>>>> On Behalf Of
> >>>>>> Stewart
> >>>>>> Bryant
> >>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 6:57 PM
> >>>>>> To: mpls@ietf.org
> >>>>>> Subject: [mpls] Draft: Response to Updated draft
> >>>>> Recommendation G.tpoam
> >>>>>> [Ref043.02]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I propose to send the following Liaison Response to
> >>>>> the ITU-T on Friday
> >>>>>> 14th January and am posting it to the MPLS WG list for
> >>>>> review.
> >>>>>> =======
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Response to Updated draft Recommendation G.tpoam [Ref
> >>>>> 043.02]
> >>>>>> From: IETF Liaison to ITU-T on MPLS stbryant@cisco.com
> >>>>>> To: tsbsg15@itu.int,
> >>>>> greg.jones@itu.int,
> >>>>> hiroshi.ota@itu.int,
> >>>>> IAB@ietf.org
> >>>>>> CC: Greg Jones, swallow@cisco.com,
> >>>>> loa@pi.nu, paf@cisco.com
> >>>>>> stbryant@cisco.com,
> >>>>> adrian.farrel@huawei.com,
> >>>>> mpls@ietf.org
> >>>>>> yoichi.maeda@ttc.or.jp,
> >>>>> steve.trowbridge@alcatel-lucent.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> ghani.abbas@ericsson.com,
> >>>>> hhelvoort@huawei.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> malcolm.betts@zte.com.cn,
> >>>>> kam.lam@alcatel-lucent.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> For Action
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The MPLS Working Group notes that this document
> >>>>> contains text describing
> >>>>>> MPLS-TP OAM protocols not designed and standardized
> >>>>> using the IETF
> >>>>>> Standards process. Specifically it uses material from
> >>>>>> draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-06.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We wish to draw your attention to the status section
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>> draft-bhh-mpls-tp-oam-y1731-06 which states:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a
> >>>>> maximum of six months
> >>>>>> and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
> >>>>> documents at any
> >>>>>> time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
> >>>>> reference material
> >>>>>> or to cite them other than as "work in progress".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please also note that since the draft filename starts
> >>>>> with the prefix
> >>>>>> string "draft-bhh" this clearly identifies it to the
> >>>>> reader as a
> >>>>>> document expressing the personal technical views of
> >>>>> the authors and
> >>>>>> hence hence as a document that that does not have any
> >>>>> acknowledged level
> >>>>>> of IETF consensus.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Since the text of draft Recommendation for G.tpoam is
> >>>>> based on an
> >>>>>> MPLS-TP OAM protocol not designed within the IETF
> >>>>> Standards Process this
> >>>>>> is a breach of the SG15 agreement with the IETF as
> >>>>> published in Report
> >>>>>> of the first meeting of Working Party 3/15 Transport
> >>>>> network structures
> >>>>>> (2009-2012) (Geneva, 1 – 12 December 2008) which can
> >>>>> be found at
> >>>>>> http://www.itu.int/md/T09-SG15-R-0004/en
> >>>>>> Please confirm that the ITU-T intends to continue with
> >>>>> the joint work on
> >>>>>> MPLS-TP and that the ITU-T will align this
> >>>>> recommendation with the IETF
> >>>>>> MPLS-TP OAM design before advancing this document
> >>>>> through the ITU-T
> >>>>>> publication process.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The MPLS Working Group would also like to draw the
> >>>>> attention of ITU-T
> >>>>>> SG15 to the IETF copyright rules. Please see
> >>>>>> http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/archive/IETF-Trust-License-
> Pol
> >>>>>> icy-
> >>>>>> 20091228.htm
> >>>>>> for further details.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Since this draft Recommendation contains text in which
> >>>>> the ITU-T SG15
> >>>>>> has proposed making changes to IETF protocols without
> >>>>> the approval of
> >>>>>> the IETF, the MPLS Working Group have referred this
> >>>>> liaison to the IAB
> >>>>>> for their consideration.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> =========
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> mpls mailing list
> >>>>>> mpls@ietf.org
> >>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> mpls-tp mailing list
> >>>>> mpls-tp@ietf.org
> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> mpls-tp mailing list
> >>>> mpls-tp@ietf.org
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> mpls mailing list
> >>> mpls@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >>
> >> --
> >> For corporate legal information go to:
> >>
> >> http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> mpls mailing list
> >> mpls@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> *****************************************************************
>                           我爱外点一七三一
> _______________________________________________
> mpls-tp mailing list
> mpls-tp@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls-tp