RE: RFC 4612 - historic status

["Paul E. Jones" <paulej@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eliot,

 

So, this is a difference of opinion.  There is no process in place through which such things can be discussed at organization/organization level.  The IETF does not have a formal liaison process like the ITU, ETSI, or other standards bodies.  There is a liaison process, as I understand it… but it has not worked so far, as far as I know.

 

So, I could come over as an individual and asked a question, I suppose.  However, would it matter what that answer is?  I am not a liaison officer between organizations.  In short, it isn’t my responsibility to go try to do my day job and coordinate between multiple standards organizations.

 

Paul

 

 

---

From: Eliot Lear [mailto:lear@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 1:56 AM
To: Paul E. Jones
Cc: dcrocker@xxxxxxxx; 'Brian E Carpenter'; ietf@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: RFC 4612 - historic status

 

Paul E. Jones wrote:

I wonder how customers might react to seeing new gateway hardware produced

utilizing "historic" RFCs.  What does that mean?

The statement from the IESG is that it means you did something you ought not to have done.  I believe we are now quibbling over the word "audio".  What I don't understand is why you didn't have this discussion with the RAI and APP folk before the document was released and come up with a mutually agreeable alternative.  A spirit of cooperation would demand no less, right?

Eliot

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf