.. snip ..
steve> To hear now that someone thinks that the ASON work in
ITU-T is some kind
steve> of secret end-run around IETF, and not involved with
or related to the
steve> work being done internally in IETF is absurd. At every
stage of the work,
steve> IETF was kept informed of the work and invited to
participate. At the
steve> invitation for help to address the additional ITU-T
requirements, there
steve> was no response. As ITU-T progressed this work and
invited further comments
steve> and alignment of the base GMPLS protocols, again no
response. And to the
steve> final pleas for comments and codepoint assignments, no
response.
steve> ...
steve> After some private communication with the Area
directors, we received some
steve> advice that one tool that might be used to finally get
the IANA codepoint
steve> assignment complete would be to publish what we were
doing in ITU-T as
steve> informational RFCs. This is the stage we are at today,
and given the
steve> history I describe above, I do not think anybody can
say that we are
steve> at this point because any of us did not do everything
possible to
steve> do this work (a) in IETF, with the initial
communication of requirements;
steve> or (b) in cooperation between ITU-T and IETF, once
this work had
steve> progressed in ITU-T.
steve>
steve> But this is all water under the bridge. We are at the
point of trying
steve> to get some codepoints assigned for ITU-T documents we
are trying to
steve> complete. Nobody should say "no" at this point because
they think we
steve> didn't try to work this IN or WITH IETF first. It
should be clear to
steve> all that this is not the case.
I can understand the frustration in not getting cooperation
and follow-up on the ITU/ASON requirements. However, the
'private communication with ADs' left most of us in the dark
as to what was (is) going on.
Jerry, there is nothing secret on this private communication here.
What Steve is saying is that the ITU people had been sending
emails to IANA to ask for RSVP and LDP code point assignments.
And that did not go smooth. So they asked teh ADs if we could
motivate IANA to take action. That is where we suggested to
write an individual I-D for publication as informational
RFC and to submit that to the RFC-Editor. That way one
achives two things:
- a timer starts ticking on the request to publish I-D as RFC
- RFC-Editor and IANA have documented material to review
the request
The concern still is (drawing from posts by Loa Andersson and
David Charlap):
loa> The consequence of approving the drafts will be that the
extensions
loa> by OIF and ITU will be approved by the IETF. I'm not
sure that this
loa> has been in the open.
Two points:
- the extensions to LDP were found to be in space that requires
IETF Consensus, and so Scott and I asked for an IETF Last Call
on the document. That is an explicit OPEN process
- the extensions to RSVP are mainly in FCFS space and in such
space the IANA can actually assign without any public
documentation. However IANA decided to ask for documentation
(and that got supported by teh ADs as per above) and so
Zhi and Bala submitted I-Ds. Thes I-Ds have been around
in various versions for quite a while, and the Zhi document
was actually discussed in CCAMP meeting a few times, so
I do not think it is fair to question if this was possibly
done in the dark (or closed) rooms.
... snip
Bert