On 2011-10-07 04:01, Adrian Farrel wrote:
...
I am aware that there are comments that an IETF design team should not have
been
shut down without consent from the ITU-T. I find, however, that when the ITU-T
agreed to develop MPLS-TP in cooperation with the IETF within the IETF and
using
IETF process, it is only to be expected that IETF design teams are managed
according to normal IETF practice.
At the risk of wading even further into muddy waters, I would like to
underline that Adrian is indeed describing normal IETF practice and that
this practice is specifically intended to ensure openness and transparency.
I want to mention an older example that occurred when I was co-chairing
the diffserv WG. It didn't involve a second SDO but otherwise it was
quite similar. We had RFC 2598 (a proposed standard). We had people in
the WG who claimed that it was underspecified and inaccurate. There were
diverging views about how to fix this, so we set up a design team. The
design team came up with a proposed update, but there were still
diverging views. So the issue was brought back to the WG as a whole.
The result was two RFCs: RFC 3246 (a proposed standard that obsoleted
2598) and RFC 3248 (an informational document describing the rejected
alternative, for the record). As a matter of fact, RFC 3248 describes
the design team proposal, which is the point of my story. The design
team process is *not* what counts; it's rough consensus in the open
WG discussion that counts.
When ITU-T agreed to work in the IETF process, they agreed to that.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf