Thomas Narten <narten(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com> wrote:
| The IESG declines Dr. Roberts's request for a hop-by-hop option for
| QOS purposes.
...
Let me add my perspective, even though I wasn't involved in the IESG
decision at all.
RFC 2780 says:
5.5 IPv6 Hop-by-Hop and Destination Option Fields
Values for the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options and Destination Options fields
are allocated using an IESG Approval, IETF Consensus or Standards
Action processes.
(where those terms are defined in RFC2434.)
The clear intention of the above is that assignments for HBH code
points be conditioned on IETF review (and approval). That is, a
document that gets published as an Internet Draft, gets reviewed, and
then pops out as an RFC.
Clear to current IESG members, perhaps; clear to the general public???
The "IESG Approval" case is a bit of an escape clause, allowing for
unusual/exceptional situations where getting an RFC published isn't
appropriate or would take too long. So I view that not as a "normal"
way of getting a code point, but one where there are "extenuating
circumstances". The clear intention is the way to get a HBH code point
is to publish an Internet Draft and bring it to the IETF for proper
review.
I would be happy to see it done that way.
But I must have missed where in the IESG email it was suggested to
Dr. Roberts that he proceed this way.
That was never done for this document. AFAIK, this document has never
been discussed in the IPv6 WG, for instance. (Indeed, there is no
draft for it, AFAIK.)
It is this sort of attitude -- that people with ideas are supposed to
"just know" the procedures which IESG members would like them to follow --
which leads to loss of respect for the IESG (and, IMHO, ends up making
their job more difficult).
How difficult would it have been to have a secretary-level support
person explain this procedure to Dr. Roberts?
Instead, we have our "leaders" publicly criticizing the idea, when the
problem is the process which wasn't followed.
The right thing to do is to have this document reviewed proper in the
IETF and then let the IETF decide what it wants to do with it.
Then why don't we do that?
IMO, it would have been completely inappropriate for the IESG to have
approved this code point assignment. Indeed, had they done so, I am
certain that a large number of folk would have immediately screamed
that the IESG had no right to do so (i.e., had exceed its authority,
etc.), and that it should have consulted with the IETF instead.
Perhaps folks just don't know who Dr. Roberts is?
Hint: he's the fellow who first published the ARPAnet idea, and
convinced the Department of Defense to fund Bob Kahn's work.
Even if you believe him a senile old fool (which he is NOT), he
deserves better than this.
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf