Margaret,
my concerns (and those of others) are a bit different I think. Again,
I see what happened as:
1. A non-IETF standard is being developed.
2. The standard is being reviewed by another organization.
3. The group working on the standard requests a code point from IANA
The "IESG review" is the only available process since no technical
review is requested within the IETF (both of the other options would
seem to imply such a review).
The IESG seems to have reacted by assuming that it had to substitute
its judgment for the technical review which is not part of the request,
and I think _that was wrong_.
If the IESG concluded that a technical review was needed, then _IETF
consensus_ would be appropriate. BUT, in this case my read is that the
IESG should _not_ have conducted a technical review, but rather should
have limited the review only on whether a code point was available, and
whether a hop-by-hop option unknown to most devices would cause any
foreseeable problems.
That last point bothers me the most; if a standard is being developed
within the framework of another known standards organization and on top
of this (in this case) by a known set of engineers, should the IETF not
focus on interoperability instead of second-guessing the outside work?
I could see how an unknown IPv6 option header could possibly become a
problem (although that would point to bad protocol design or
implementation, IMHO), so interoperability should be reviewed, but
otherwise I _cannot_ see how the _content_ of the option could harm a
device that does not want to deal with it.
On Jun 29, 2005, at 17:39, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I agree that this would be a reasonable process, but wouldn't that be
"IETF Consensus" (an entirely separate choice in RFC 2434 from IESG
Approval)?
I said that I was confused... and this is the main point that is
confusing me. The arguments against what the IESG has done seem,
mostly, to be that we should have gotten IETF consensus before
making a decision. But, if the IESG isn't supposed to make any
decisions without IETF consensus, then why are these two separate
choices in RFC 2434?
Hans Kruse, Associate Professor
J. Warren McClure School of Communication Systems Management
Adjunct Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer
Science
Ohio University, Athens, OH, 45701
740-593-4891 voice, 740-593-4889 fax
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf