At a recent meeting, Dr. Roberts said that this option had been approved as a recommendation by an ITU Study Group. He didn't indicate which SG or what the rec. number would be. He said he had an ISP that wanted to deploy this function. If all this is true, would it not be reasonable for IANA to assign a code to an ITU approved option to avoid incompatible codepoint use? If IANA doesn't support ITU work, this might be construed as a reason to move the IANA function to an ITU Study Group or another administrative body that might be neutral with respect to the various standards bodies. Dr. Roberts said he had submitted this work to the IETF but it hadn't been assigned to a WG. He is apparently unfamiliar with IETF procedures. Steve Silverman > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf_censored-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:ietf_censored-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On > Behalf Of Ralph > Droms > Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 6:42 PM > To: IESG > Cc: lroberts@xxxxxxxxx; IETF Announcement list > Subject: Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option > > > I'd like to understand the process through which Dr. > Roberts' request > was reviewed. The first reference I can find to Dr. > Roberts' request is > in the 2005-04-14 minutes of the IESG > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/view_telechat_minute.cgi? > command=view_minute&id=318 see below). According to the rejection > announcement, the IESG reviewed the submission and determined that > "Reviewing this proposal within the IETF as an alternative to the > ongoing work would be a multi-year endeavor. The IESG is pessimistic > that this effort would ever achieve consensus." The > minutes refer to > discussion of a "management issue". Was the entire review > conducted in > the meeting on 2005-04-14, or was there additional review conducted > prior to that meeting? How, exactly, did the IESG review > the submission > and how did the IESG come to its conclusion? > > - Ralph > > ===== > > Minutes of the IESG Teleconferences > > > INTERNET ENGINEERING STEERING GROUP (IESG) > Minutes of the April 14, 2005 IESG Teleconference > > Reported by: Amy Vezza, IETF Secretariat > > ATTENDEES > --------------------------------- > Brian Carpenter / IBM > Michelle Cotton / ICANN (IANA) > Leslie Daigle / VeriSign (IAB) > Bill Fenner / AT&T > Barbara Fuller / IETF Secretariat > Ted Hardie / Qualcomm, Inc. > Sam Hartman / MIT > Scott Hollenbeck / VeriSign > Russ Housley / Vigil Security, LLC > David Kessens / Nokia > Allison Mankin / Shinkuro, Inc. > Dave Meyer / Cisco/University of Oregon (IAB Liaison) > Jon Peterson / NeuStar, Inc. > Joyce K. Reynolds / RFC Editor > Barbara Roseman / ICANN (IANA) > Mark Townsley / Cisco > Amy Vezza / IETF Secretariat > Margaret Wasserman / Nokia > Bert Wijnen / Lucent > Alex Zinin / Alcatel > > REGRETS > --------------------------------- > > Dinara Suleymanova / IETF Secretariat > > MINUTES > --------------------------------- > > [...] > > NEW: > > o Allison Mankin to craft IESG response to the > Roberts (ipv6-parameter) Request > for Assignments. > > [...] > > 7.2 IESG Handling of General Request for > Assignments (Roberts) > (ipv6-parameter) (Allison Mankin and Michelle Cotton) > > The management issue was discussed. The IESG has > taken the token > to prepare an appropriate response for Dr. Roberts. > Action item: Allison Mankin to craft IESG response > to the Roberts > (ipv6-parameter) Request for Assignments. > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ > This message was passed through > ietf_censored@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, which is a sublist of > ietf@xxxxxxxxx Not all messages are passed. Decisions on > what to pass are made solely by IETF_CENSORED ML > Administrator (ietf_admin@xxxxxxxx). > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf