I want to clarify something here. IANA is not at fault. It submits requests
like this to IESG to assure that there is consistency in
standards work. In the past there have been attempts to circumvent standards
work that is under way by directly submitting requests
to IANA for assignment. I am not aware of the present status of any
IETF-related work that might consume any or all of the bits in
question in the IPv6 header. Larry has developed a reasonable method for
dealing with flow control even if the payload of the IPv6
packet is encrypted. there may be debates about the method chosen but that
doesn't seem to be the issue here. To avoid conflicts,
Larry is reasonably asking for an assignment.
Vint
Vinton Cerf, SVP Technology Strategy, MCI
22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
Ashburn, VA 20147
+1 703 886 1690, +1 703 886 0047 fax
vinton(_dot_)g(_dot_)cerf(_at_)mci(_dot_)com
_____
From: Dr. Lawrence G. Roberts [mailto:lroberts(_at_)packet(_dot_)cc]
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 3:31 PM
To: Steve Silverman; Ralph Droms; IESG; Vinton G. Cerf
Cc: lroberts(_at_)packet(_dot_)cc; IETF Announcement list
Subject: RE: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option
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>
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