Hi John, On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 2:05 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > --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? There are various reasons for and against various different possible paths for this document. Among the reasons for the path that has thus far been chosen are the following: (1) It needs an IANA registry to be created. An Independent submission cannot create a new IANA registry (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ise-iana-policy/ currently in the AUTH48 state). (2) This is based on RFC 2516 which was an AD-sponsored Informational draft so, as a default, it seemed to me like a reasonable way to go. (3) I believe there is a clear consensus in favor of publishing this document as an Informational RFC among the interested members of the IETF community. > (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? Well, I suppose the IETF is being asked if it is good enough to get a code point. But other than that, I don't think publication as Informational constitutes a technical endorsement of the type you are asking about. Presumably there is supposed to be a difference between Informational, that to the first approximation just provides Information, and BCP or Standard which clearly endorse something. > (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? Bob Hinden's suggestion that some discussion of MTU be added seems reasonable and is the normal sort of thing that might come up during an extended IETF Last Call on an AD-sponsored draft but, due to the design constraints, I do not think technical "work" or technical change is needed. As far as I can recall, I was not directly involved in discussions with the sponsoring AD concerning their decision to go the AD-sponsored route as opposed to some other path. > (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. The way people think about IPR differs in different areas of technology. In the area in question, IPR is common so I don't think it changes the above answers. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 33896 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx > thanks, > john -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
