--On Wednesday, 12 August, 2020 13:15 +0000 "STARK, BARBARA H"
<bs7652@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> As someone who observed the discussion on this topic in
> Broadband Forum (BBF), I support IETF publication. The BBF
> work area spent significant time discussing and assessing
> multiple options to solve the problem. That led to selection
> of this solution. After selection, they spent time refining
> this solution before submitting to IETF. This draft documents
> a strong-consensus and well-vetted solution from the ISPs,
> equipment vendors, and others participating in architecting 5G
> Wireless-Wireline convergence.
If this really represents the work and consensus of another body
(BBF -- and I have no reason to doubt that it does-- four
questions:
(1) Why not just publish it as the conclusions of the BBF for
the information of the community, e.g., via the ISE and not the
IETF?
(2) As a corollary, is the IETF being asked if it would be a
good idea to publish this or is technical endorsement (even if
not standards track handling) being sought?
(3) Or, if Bob Hinden is correct that the specification is still
in need of technical work, why isn't this document going through
some WG process to consider that work? If the answer is that
publication is being sought without or despite technical
evaluations within the IETF, doesn't that bring us back to ISE
publication being more appropriate?
(4) Do any of the answers above change when the IPR disclosure
is read? That IPR disclosure claims fairly clearly that this
is, at least in part, a proprietary technology dependent on
licensing and that such licensing, while promised to be
reasonable and non-discriminatory, may involve a licensing fee.
thanks,
john
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
