A few more thoughts on this thread.
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.
Why do you suddenly think that it is important for only people with
knowledge of a topic to contribute to standards? Where does that leave the
ITU-T's input on MPLS? I can give you many examples of where people who had no
qualification as "experts" in a particular field have contributed to standards,
but I will refrain from doing so so as to not "offend other SDOs" as you say
below. 8)
The IETF should refrain from documenting things that might offend
other SDOs concerning standards issues in which IETF was or is not
involved.
Since when does offending other SDOs become a concern of any other SDO?
Along these lines, let us take the flip-side of that example you give and ask
ourselves why the ITU-T's comments on MPLS do not offend IETF folks (or other
SDOs for that matter) and why there was not a concern of offending when those
were made?
--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