ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2012-03-14 06:39:51
Having thought about this for some time, I think I concur with Russ' reasoning 
and the allocation should be made. 

NEC Europe Limited | Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 
6BL | Registered in England 2832014 


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org 
[mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Russ Housley
Sent: Freitag, 2. März 2012 00:52
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

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