Russ hi,
I think many concerns were raised on draft-betts itself, so I think we
should first look at these comments....
Concerning G.8113.1, as mentioned before as it was disapproved, it is
clear that there was no consensus. It will be good to understand what
are the issues...the code point was not the main issue, as indicated by
John.
Best regards,
Nurit
P.S. Concerning the chances of the document to be approved in WTSA,
please note that I do not think the members of WTSA have the technical
expertise to discuss the technical aspects of the document, and I
believe they would like to encourage SG15 to stick with the ITU's
culture of negotiation and consensus-building and have technical
standards developed by the industry members based on consensus. The
logical step would be to send the document back to SG15 to resolve the
issues and get consensus.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
ext Russ Housley
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2012 8:11 PM
To: John E Drake
Cc: IETF
Subject: Re: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>
(Allocationof an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T
EthernetbasedOAM) to Informational RFC
John:
If G.8113.1 never gets approved, then draft-betts- will sit in the RFC
Editor queue until someone acknowledges this situation.
I do not want anyone to use the IETF as a reason for or against
achieving consensus in the ITU-T. Such consensus is left completely to
ITU-T member states and sector members.
Russ
On Mar 3, 2012, at 12:58 PM, John E Drake wrote:
Hi,
I agree with the proposal that Russ Housley made, below, but before
even provisionally granting G.8113.1 a code point by placing draft-betts
in the RFC editor's queue until G.8113.1 is approved, I would like to
understand whether there is a reasonable chance for it to be approved at
WTSA next fall.
Draft-betts was already in the IETF approval process at the time that
G.8113.1 was disapproved, so I don't see why lack of a code point was
given as a reason for its disapproval.
It is my understanding that it is very unusual to send a document to
WTSA for approval, so would the authors please indicate the other issues
causing G.8113.1 to be disapproved and the plan by which the ITU will
address these issues?
Thanks,
John
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf
Of
Russ Housley
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 3:52 PM
To: Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
Cc: IETF
Subject: Re: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>
(Allocation of anAssociated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T
Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC
Nurit:
Some people are using the lack of a code point as the reason that the
cannot support the ITU-T document. My approach tells the ITU-T that
a
code point is available to them IFF they are able to reach consensus.
The removes IETF from the discussion. This creates a situation where
G.8113.1 succeeded or fails based on the ITU-T members actions, with
no
finger pointing at the IETF. This is completely a Layer 9
consideration, and it has noting to do with the technical content of
the document.
Russ
On Mar 1, 2012, at 2:33 PM, Sprecher, Nurit (NSN - IL/Hod HaSharon)
wrote:
Russ,
I propose to simply re-discuss it when and IFF G.8113.1 is mature
and
approved...
Best regards,
Nurit
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf
Of
ext Russ Housley
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2012 9:12 PM
To: IETF
Subject: Re: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt>
(Allocation of anAssociated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T
Ethernet
basedOAM) to Informational RFC
Right now, there is no ITU-T approved document to reference.
I am certainly not an expert on ITU-T process, but my
understanding is that earliest that we could see an approved
G.8113.1 is December 2012. My point is that we don't want to
assign a code point until the ITU-T approves their document.
However, if we are willing to assign a code point to G.8113.1
once it is approved, then this would be an approach where the
code point assignment would block on the approval of the
normative reference.
I like this approach from the political point of view. With
this approach the IETF tells the ITU-T that if and only if
they are able to achieve consensus on G.8113.1, then a code
point will be assigned.
FWIW, this seems entirely appropriate to me. If we do it this
way, I think it is important to note --for the benefit of those
more historically involved with the ITU and others-- that we
routinely block our own documents on normative references to
work that is still in progress and, usually, do not do related
code point allocations until the blocking referenced documents
are ready. Once the present I-D is judged to be sufficiently
ready, this approach would therefore be IETF approval and a
formal guarantee to the ITU that a code point will be allocated
if an when G.8113.1 is approved and published, but not
assignment of that code point until the referenced base document
is finished.
Completely normal procedurally.
To be clear John our normal requirement would be that the
technical community achieved consensus that the base document
was ready. I have never seen ITU-T consensus on the contents
of G.8113.1 at any meeting that I have observed. What in your
view is the criteria for determining that G.8113.1 has achieved
consensus?
This is not an IETF problem, and I do not think that the IETF ought
to
be discussing the internal workings of the ITU-T process. The point
is
to come up with a mechanism that allows the code point to be
assigned
if
and only if the ITU-T does come to a consensus by whatever means is
allowed by their own process.
Russ
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf