Excerpts from Dolly, Martin C, NPE on Mon, Nov 06, 2006 01:22:26PM -0600:
1) Should this work be done within the IETF?
Not all the work in this space is appropriate for the IETF (e.g.,
architecture dependent). The appropriate work (protocol
extension/definition) should be done in the IETF. If a protocol
extension or new capability is required, the protocol/capability work
MUST be done in the IETF.
WRT, the problem definition and requirements: the initial analysis MAY
be done in another SDO (eg,. ATIS), and be brought to the IETF when a
gap/need has been identified. A service like ETS is supported and
deployed in certain architecture/deployment scenarios, whereby the
expertise is not in the IETF.
ETS Service Definition requirements are appropriate for ATIS.
Side note: my focus is on the ETS service. All of the major players
(vendors, service providers, contractors, and most importantly
CUSTOMER), attend and participate in the ATIS work.
However, it is important that the IETF not *just* do protocols. The
IETF needs to consider how proposed "architectures" fit in with all
the other requirements on the Internet. The IETF doesn't do protocol
engineering, it does Internet engineering. It is fine for other
organizations (not necessarily SDOs) to do service requirements and
scenarios. They can *propose* architectures. If the IETF can support
those architectures in ways that are consistent with overall Internet
design, then fine. Otherwise the IETF should not be restricted to
just protocol extension/definition. The IETF has to think of a bigger
picture.
swb
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf