Shahram,
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
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org?
--
Alex
Thursday, March 6, 2003, 11:35:16 AM, Shahram Davari wrote:
Hi All,
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.
Thanks,
-Shahram