Steve,
Thank you for your thoughts. I am not sure about the next step, but I can
clarify some of the points that were unclear.
British Telecom submitted it to the ITU SG12 in January and we had
unanimous approval to be included as a concept for QoS in Y-1221. Then BT
submitted it to SG13 as a detailed proposal of a signaling protocol and it
again had unanimous approval to go forward as the basis of a recommendation.
I submitted the IPv6 part to the TIA several years ago and in May the ITU
version (with IPv4 and IPv6) was approved by the TIA and sent out for final
ballot.
As to submitting a draft to the IETF, I never did since the most critical
need was in satellites which will not work with IPv6 due to encryption (no
spoofing possible) without this protocol. The TIA has historically worked
on satellite protocol issues. The TIA however, did submit an earlier draft
to the IETF as a coordination effort and it was assigned to the satellite
group. No action has been heard of from them.
The TIA ballot closes Tuesday so this action is perhaps at the worst
possible time since the TIA members will see the announcement and I have
virtually no time to respond and explain any possibility of rectifying the
IETF action. To rectify it I must notify all TIA members of an appeal or
other action this weekend. Otherwise it will cause the TIA to consider how
they can proceed to provide support for IPv6 over satellites in the face of
IETF refusal to assign a code so that they can operate IPv6 without
conflict. This is of great importance to DoD, who have been sponsoring this
work so that the next generation of satellites can be completed and
launched and future field operations can be efficient and secured.
I need help as to any process that can mitigate this major conflict with
the TIA/ITU and the IETF and I need to act now. Please send your thoughts,
Larry
At 04:11 PM 6/24/2005, Steve Silverman wrote:
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