Thomas Narten <narten@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>| The IESG declines Dr. Roberts's request for a hop-by-hop option for >>| QOS purposes. >... > > Let me add my perspective, even though I wasn't involved in the IESG > decision at all. > > RFC 2780 says: > > > 5.5 IPv6 Hop-by-Hop and Destination Option Fields > > > > Values for the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options and Destination Options fields > > are allocated using an IESG Approval, IETF Consensus or Standards > > Action processes. > > (where those terms are defined in RFC2434.) > > The clear intention of the above is that assignments for HBH code > points be conditioned on IETF review (and approval). That is, a > document that gets published as an Internet Draft, gets reviewed, and > then pops out as an RFC. Clear to current IESG members, perhaps; clear to the general public??? > The "IESG Approval" case is a bit of an escape clause, allowing for > unusual/exceptional situations where getting an RFC published isn't > appropriate or would take too long. So I view that not as a "normal" > way of getting a code point, but one where there are "extenuating > circumstances". The clear intention is the way to get a HBH code point > is to publish an Internet Draft and bring it to the IETF for proper > review. I would be happy to see it done that way. But I must have missed where in the IESG email it was suggested to Dr. Roberts that he proceed this way. > That was never done for this document. AFAIK, this document has never > been discussed in the IPv6 WG, for instance. (Indeed, there is no > draft for it, AFAIK.) It is this sort of attitude -- that people with ideas are supposed to "just know" the procedures which IESG members would like them to follow -- which leads to loss of respect for the IESG (and, IMHO, ends up making their job more difficult). How difficult would it have been to have a secretary-level support person explain this procedure to Dr. Roberts? Instead, we have our "leaders" publicly criticizing the idea, when the problem is the process which wasn't followed. > The right thing to do is to have this document reviewed proper in the > IETF and then let the IETF decide what it wants to do with it. Then why don't we do that? > IMO, it would have been completely inappropriate for the IESG to have > approved this code point assignment. Indeed, had they done so, I am > certain that a large number of folk would have immediately screamed > that the IESG had no right to do so (i.e., had exceed its authority, > etc.), and that it should have consulted with the IETF instead. Perhaps folks just don't know who Dr. Roberts is? Hint: he's the fellow who first published the ARPAnet idea, and convinced the Department of Defense to fund Bob Kahn's work. Even if you believe him a senile old fool (which he is NOT), he deserves better than this. -- John Leslie <john@xxxxxxx> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf