All,
It is up to the sponsoring AD to decide on the review process. The mpls wg
co-chairs will discuss this this week, and we'll let the AD know what we think.
With my wg chair hat off I have to say that more review is better than less.
I assume that the will inform us of the review process as soon as it has been
decided.
/Loa
Skickat från min iPhone
2 dec 2011 kl. 21:24 skrev Azhar Sayeed <asayeed(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>:
Shouldn't this document be referred to MPLS WG and PWE3 WG so that we can
discuss the merits and demerits of allocating yet another request for the
code point...
The name of the document suggests it has to do with the official ITU request
for a code point ..but nowhere in the document does it actually say that...
To me this is not part of Inter SDO communication and even if it was it
should still get the approval of the MPLS and PWE3 WG before the code point
assignment.
Azhar
t.petch wrote:
---- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Nadeau"<tnadeau(_at_)lucidvision(_dot_)com>
To: "Huub helvoort"<huub(_dot_)van(_dot_)helvoort(_at_)huawei(_dot_)com>
Cc: "Adrian Farrel"<adrian(_at_)olddog(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk>;
<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org>; "The
IESG"
<iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;<Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 2:40 PM
I disagree with the document shepherd's evaluation of this document. This
document sets out to
standardize an additional code point to support a type of OAM for MPLS, and
as
such the MPLS WG must
review the document for technical correctness. As far as I understand
things,
all MPLS documents that have
requested ACH code points to-date have been on the standards track with MPLS
expert WG review, and so this
one should as well.
I don't doubt the history, but IANA gives a policy of
IETF Consensus (referencing [RFC4385]) which is defined as
" IETF Consensus - New values are assigned through the IETF
consensus process. Specifically, new assignments are made via
RFCs approved by the IESG. Typically, the IESG will seek
input on prospective assignments from appropriate persons
(e.g., a relevant Working Group if one exists)." [RFC2434]
If Standards Action had been the intention, then the WG should have
said so in RFC4385.
Tom Petch
--Tom
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf