--On Wednesday, 29 June, 2005 01:04 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<brc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> John, I'm probably replying out of sequence, and I'll say this
> once
> again only:
>
> I don't believe that the IESG is entitled, under the BCP in
> force,
> to authorise the IANA to assign a hop by hop option number to
> a usage that we believe clearly needs IETF technical review.
> So we don't go to question 2 until we've dealt with question 1.
While we read the BCP differently, largely because of a
different understanding of the thread and definitions that led
up to it (see other notes), this seems like a perfectly
reasonable position. I am a firm believer in IETF technical
review, even if the result of that review is either a request to
talk the submitter out of the option number request or the
attachment of an in-depth "why this is bad news" comment to the
assignment when it is made.
But, if that is the IESG's position, then the IESG should have
responded "_We_ cannot (or even 'will not') approve this type of
proposal without IETF technical review because we have doubts
about it technically. We are not denying the request for the
long term, just indicating that, if the submitter wants the
option number, arrangements for submission to the IETF, and IETF
review, will need to occur first. And we will, of course, keep
an open mind on the protocol quality and technical review until
we hear from the community after such a review is concluded."
What the IESG appears to have said instead is not "IETF
technical review is needed" but something more similar to "we
have discussed this and conducted a review. (Given our
complaints about lack of available documentation, we may have
done that review without looking at the supporting materials.)
On the basis of _our_ review, we have decided that the protocol
is defective and that there is no point asking the IETF
community because they would ultimately make the same decision."
Now, whatever I, or the community, may think of that style of
decision-making -- it has been discussed on this thread and I
won't repeat it -- _that_ takes us immediately back to question
2 because the IESG has decided, and said, that further IETF
technical review beyond the IESG's conclusions is not needed.
So, from that perspective, the review has been completed and we
only have the question of registration and identification to
discuss.
john
> There are two, almost completely separate, issues here:
>
> (1) The quality and utility of the proposed mechanism
> and where it falls on a scale that runs from "greatest
> idea in computer networking ever" to "the connection of
> a single device supporting this mechanism to the public
> Internet will cause an immediate meltdown after which no
> traffic will flow again, ever".
>
> (2) Whether or not it an option number should be
> assigned to it.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf