[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Google
  Web www.spinics.net

RE: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of an Associated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC



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@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] 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@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] 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@xxxxxxxx
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[IETF Annoucements]     [IETF Obscurity Interest]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux]     [Pilates]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]

Add to Google