Keith,
At 05:40 AM 06/28/2005, Keith Moore wrote:
My personal opinion is that it's quite reasonable to require IESG approval
of an IP-level option. IMHO the IESG should solicit public input before
making such a decision, probably in the form of a Last Call. But the
potential for harm is such that somebody needs to have the ability to say
"no". Or to put it another way, IMHO we need both convincing evidence of
technical soundness, ideally supported by analysis, and a compelling
argument of benefit for the Internet community, to justify adding a new
option to the IP layer. We already have too much variation in the
operating environment from one network to another.
Well said.
I would be troubled by any change to IP (including new options) that was
not discussed in the IETF, documented in an RFC, and have declared IPR. In
the hour glass model of the IP architecture these are changes that go in
the skinny waist. A place in the architecture where we want to be
conservative adding new things (as opposed to higher up where we clearly
want lots of diversity and liberal assignment policies).
Bob
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf