>>>>> "Scott" == Scott W Brim <swb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Scott> On 11/09/2006 18:43 PM, Sam Hartman allegedly wrote:
>>>>>>> "Scott" == Scott W Brim <swb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
Scott> However, it is important that the IETF not *just* do
Scott> protocols. The IETF needs to consider how proposed
Scott> "architectures" fit in with all the other requirements on
Scott> the Internet. The IETF doesn't do protocol engineering, it
Scott> does Internet engineering. It is fine for other
Scott> organizations (not necessarily SDOs) to do service
Scott> requirements and scenarios. They can *propose*
Scott> architectures. If the IETF can support those architectures
Scott> in ways that are consistent with overall Internet design,
Scott> then fine. Otherwise the IETF should not be restricted to
Scott> just protocol extension/definition. The IETF has to think
Scott> of a bigger picture.
>>
>>
>> Completely agree. I'd rather see architectures and systems
>> proposed elsewhere, reviewed by the ietf, and then us develop
>> the protocols. There may be some cases where we do
>> architecture work; I don't think this is one of them.
Scott> Please help me figure out the essential differences between
Scott> "architecture" that should be done in the IETF and
Scott> "architecture" that can be done elsewhere.
Scott, we discussed this in person. I think that when I say
architecture that can be done elsewhere, I'm thinking of things you
would call service descriptions and service requirements.
Some people might also consider a document that took a technical
architecture, described deployment and operational considerations for
it, and described a framework for business agreements to deal with
intra-domain aspects of the technology an architecture.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf