*>
*> Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I think it is important to document
*> extensions and modifications made by other bodies to IETF protocols.
*>
*> I would caution against progressing this draft until the referenced ITU
*> material (G.7713.3) has reached consent within the ITU since to move it
*> forward at this stage as an informational RFC might be misleading.
*>
Adrian,
There is a procedural catch-22 here. This document was written, I believe,
to satisfy the IANA requirements for documentation oft code points to
be assigned for the ITU. Presumably the ITU cannot progress their document
until these code points are assigned, yet the IANA is naturally wary about
assigning undocumented code points.
*> At that point, perhaps Osama could clarify in the draft, that this
*> draft introduces no new TLVs, messages or procedures others than those
*> already agreed within the ITU. That is, that this draft is truly
*> informational. Currently the text reads as though this draft is,
*> itself, defining new material.
I believe the document implies that, but maybe you need them to say,
"Cross my heart and hope to die if it's not ITU-compliant"?
That said, the RFC Editor was asked to publish this as an independent
submission, and we are following procedures. Those procedures
include asking the IESG to advise-and-consent to publication, which
led in turn to the Last Call. But the RFC Editor does not want to
publish anything whose confusion factor exceeds the long-term benefits
of publication, so we are pleased to get your input.
Bob Braden for the RFC Editor