From: Alex Zinin [mailto:zinin(_at_)psg(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 6:06 PM
To: Shahram Davari
Cc: ccamp(_at_)ops(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org; mpls(_at_)UU(_dot_)NET;
Subject: Re: draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-00.txt
Since the draft in subject is not specific to the CCAMP or MPLS WGs,
or even the SUB-IP area, may I suggest that we don't abuse the
mailing lists of these WGs and take the discussion to
Thursday, March 6, 2003, 11:35:16 AM, Shahram Davari wrote:
I would like to make an alternative proposal to what is
proposed in this draft.
I think that IETF should not prevent other SDOs from
developing extensions (minor or major),
to IETF protocols, as long as they don't call those
extensions being IETF compliant.
I think IETF could recommend that the other SDOs present
their protocol extensions
to IETF (in the form of a draft). The IETF community then
has 3 choices:
1) IETF agrees with the requirements and nature of the
extensions and find them useful. In that case IETF could
engage in technical discussions with the other SDO and reach
to a mutually agreeable
draft, which could then be advanced to Proposed Standard.
2) IETF agrees with the requirement, but does not agree with
the proposed extension, and prefers other solutions/extensions
that it thinks meet those requirements. In that case IETF could develop
its solution and present it to the requesting SDO. If that
SDO is satisfied with
IETF's solution, then fine, otherwise nobody can prevent
them from developing their own extension. If that happens then
there would be two solutions for the same requirements
and we should let the Market decide which solution/extension
do they prefer.
3) IETF does not agree with the requirement for such
extensions at all. In that case, the
other SDO should be free to developed their own extension,
provided they don't call those extensions to be IETF compliant.