At a recent meeting, Dr. Roberts said that this option had been
approved as a recommendation by an ITU Study Group. He didn't
indicate which SG or what the rec. number would be. He said he had an
ISP that wanted to deploy this function.
If all this is true, would it not be reasonable for IANA to assign a
code to an ITU approved option to avoid incompatible codepoint use?
If IANA doesn't support ITU work, this might be construed as a reason
to move the IANA function to an ITU Study Group or another
administrative body that might be neutral with respect to the various
standards bodies.
Dr. Roberts said he had submitted this work to the IETF but it hadn't
been assigned to a WG. He is apparently unfamiliar with IETF
procedures.
Steve Silverman
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf_censored-admin(_at_)vesuvio(_dot_)ipv6(_dot_)tilab(_dot_)com
[mailto:ietf_censored-admin(_at_)vesuvio(_dot_)ipv6(_dot_)tilab(_dot_)com]On
Behalf Of Ralph
Droms
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 6:42 PM
To: IESG
Cc: lroberts(_at_)packet(_dot_)cc; IETF Announcement list
Subject: Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option
I'd like to understand the process through which Dr.
Roberts' request
was reviewed. The first reference I can find to Dr.
Roberts' request is
in the 2005-04-14 minutes of the IESG
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/view_telechat_minute.cgi?
command=view_minute&id=318 see below). According to the rejection
announcement, the IESG reviewed the submission and determined that
"Reviewing this proposal within the IETF as an alternative to the
ongoing work would be a multi-year endeavor. The IESG is pessimistic
that this effort would ever achieve consensus." The
minutes refer to
discussion of a "management issue". Was the entire review
conducted in
the meeting on 2005-04-14, or was there additional review conducted
prior to that meeting? How, exactly, did the IESG review
the submission
and how did the IESG come to its conclusion?
- Ralph
=====
Minutes of the IESG Teleconferences
INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG)
Minutes of the April 14, 2005 IESG Teleconference
Reported by: Amy Vezza, IETF Secretariat
ATTENDEES
---------------------------------
Brian Carpenter / IBM
Michelle Cotton / ICANN (IANA)
Leslie Daigle / VeriSign (IAB)
Bill Fenner / AT&T
Barbara Fuller / IETF Secretariat
Ted Hardie / Qualcomm, Inc.
Sam Hartman / MIT
Scott Hollenbeck / VeriSign
Russ Housley / Vigil Security, LLC
David Kessens / Nokia
Allison Mankin / Shinkuro, Inc.
Dave Meyer / Cisco/University of Oregon (IAB Liaison)
Jon Peterson / NeuStar, Inc.
Joyce K. Reynolds / RFC Editor
Barbara Roseman / ICANN (IANA)
Mark Townsley / Cisco
Amy Vezza / IETF Secretariat
Margaret Wasserman / Nokia
Bert Wijnen / Lucent
Alex Zinin / Alcatel
REGRETS
---------------------------------
Dinara Suleymanova / IETF Secretariat
MINUTES
---------------------------------
[...]
NEW:
o Allison Mankin to craft IESG response to the
Roberts (ipv6-parameter) Request
for Assignments.
[...]
7.2 IESG Handling of General Request for
Assignments (Roberts)
(ipv6-parameter) (Allison Mankin and Michelle Cotton)
The management issue was discussed. The IESG has
taken the token
to prepare an appropriate response for Dr. Roberts.
Action item: Allison Mankin to craft IESG response
to the Roberts
(ipv6-parameter) Request for Assignments.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
This message was passed through
ietf_censored(_at_)carmen(_dot_)ipv6(_dot_)cselt(_dot_)it, which is a sublist
of
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_) Not all messages are passed. Decisions on
what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML
Administrator (ietf_admin(_at_)ngnet(_dot_)it).
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf