Excerpts from Dolly, Martin C, NPE on Mon, Nov 06, 2006 01:22:26PM -0600: > 1) Should this work be done within the IETF? > > Not all the work in this space is appropriate for the IETF (e.g., > architecture dependent). The appropriate work (protocol > extension/definition) should be done in the IETF. If a protocol > extension or new capability is required, the protocol/capability work > MUST be done in the IETF. > > WRT, the problem definition and requirements: the initial analysis MAY > be done in another SDO (eg,. ATIS), and be brought to the IETF when a > gap/need has been identified. A service like ETS is supported and > deployed in certain architecture/deployment scenarios, whereby the > expertise is not in the IETF. > > ETS Service Definition requirements are appropriate for ATIS. > > Side note: my focus is on the ETS service. All of the major players > (vendors, service providers, contractors, and most importantly > CUSTOMER), attend and participate in the ATIS work. However, it is important that the IETF not *just* do protocols. The IETF needs to consider how proposed "architectures" fit in with all the other requirements on the Internet. The IETF doesn't do protocol engineering, it does Internet engineering. It is fine for other organizations (not necessarily SDOs) to do service requirements and scenarios. They can *propose* architectures. If the IETF can support those architectures in ways that are consistent with overall Internet design, then fine. Otherwise the IETF should not be restricted to just protocol extension/definition. The IETF has to think of a bigger picture. swb _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf