>>>>> "James" == James M Polk <jmpolk@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
James> At 12:41 PM 11/2/2006 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Nov 2006, Sam Hartman wrote: > I don't believe the
>> new charter of ieprep working group belongs in the > IETF. I
>> understand why we chartered it here, and I believe that by >
>> doing as much work as we have done so far in the IETF, we have
>> done > something useful. We've described the broad problem and
>> have helped > to explain how it fits in the Internet context.
>> That was an important > thing for us to do.
>>
>> I think I'll agree with Sam.
James> I do not agree with Sam
>> Having looked at the output of the WG, it already seems to
>> include a couple of useful framework documents and about 4
>> requirements documents.
James> the framework RFCs are for within a single public domain.
James> The other RFCs are requirements based.
James> There is no architecture guidelines docs or peering
James> guidelines or the like.
Why does that belong in the IETF? RFC 2418 gives a good set of things
to consider for determining whether work belongs in the IETF. I will
try to write up a guideline by guideline analysis of this work,
although when I briefly examine the guidelines my continuing reaction
is that the work probably does not belong in the IETF. If you have
time to write up such an analysis I'd be interested in what you come
up with.
>> This should already provide sufficient information how to
>> continue the work.
James> continue the work.... where? by who? by another SDO? Why?
My proposal is ITU-T--probably SG 13, although I don't understand ITU
internals enough to know for sure that's the right place.
Obviously, this assumes they want to do the work.
To propose concrete action, I think the IETF should draft a liaison
statement for action to the ITU asking for them to comment on whether
they see any current conflicts and on whether there are parts of this
work they would be interested in picking up. Such liaisons are not
uncommon when appropriate; we had such an exchange with IEEE when the
trill working group was formed.
If the ITU says that they're not interested in these aspects of the
work, and no one else makes an alternative proposal, then I would not
object to the work being chartered in the IETF. However if the ITU
would be interested in working on this problem space (or especially is
already work on this problem space), we need to carefully ask
ourselves why each aspect of the work being done in the IETF belongs
here.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf