Hi -
I'm confused about this approval.
As I read the draft and the approval comments, this document is an independent
submission describing how to do C12.22 over IP. But the document is without
context for "who does this" typical to an informational RFC.
Is this
a) A document describing how the document authors would do this if they were a
standards organization?
b) A description of how their company does this in their products?
c) A description of how another standards body (which one????) does this?
d) A back door attempt to form an international standard within the IETF
without using the traditional IETF working group mechanisms?
This feels like (d) and is written like (d) and I believe past discussions
have suggested that (d) is inappropriate for the Informational series.
If this isn't the case, then the front matter of the document should identify
one of a, b or c as the source case.
As the announcement didn't point to a final RFC, and the front matter as above
on the -07 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-c1222-transport-over-ip/) is
written not as a "here's how we do it" informational, but as a "here's how all
of us will do it" specification.
My recommendation:
Either add an RFC comment along the lines of a, b or c, or publish this as an
Experimental RFC pre-submission to the working group process with the
appropriate front matter identifying the submitters in their entirety (e.g. is
this an Itron/L&G submission as seems to be implied in the Introduction).
I apologize for missing this in the Last Call back in July, but I'm kind of
surprised this got past the IESG without some explanatory material being added
to the front.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf