Donald, As I said, just questions, slightly reinforced by the IESG's recent decision that, as I understand it, anything published in the IETF stream requires evidence of IETF consensus - a stronger condition, IMO, than "some people think this is a good idea and no one else objects". So the questions seemed worth asking. john --On Wednesday, 12 August, 2020 15:28 -0400 Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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
