ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

2011-09-29 06:48:53

On Sep 29, 2011, at 1:06 AM, Huub van Helvoort wrote:

All,

I propose to completely remove section 5 of this draft.

The reason:

The IETF should *NOT* document any comment on any "multiple standards"
developed by other SDOs which are outside of the IETF's scope.

Especially standards like like SONET/SDH, CDMA/GSM.

The current text reflects the author's impressions, and since I don't
believe that the authors were involved in the debates when these
standards were developed, they *DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH* to comment
authoritatively on them.

        Isn't that why this draft is targeted as an *individual and 
informational* draft?  Since that is the case, I don't see how your point is 
relevant to the document at hand.

The IETF should refrain from documenting things that might offend
other SDOs concerning standards issues in which IETF was or is not
involved.

        That is your opinion. However, please observe that other SDOs document 
and cross-reference each others' works all the time often adding their "2 
cents".  For example, take what the BBF does with many IETF standards.

        --Tom





Best regards, Huub.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>