Re: Last Call: <draft-sprecher-mpls-tp-oam-considerations-01.txt> (The Reasons for Selecting a Single Solution for MPLS-TP OAM) to Informational RFC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sep 29, 2011, at 1:06 AM, Huub van Helvoort wrote:

> All,
> 
> I propose to completely remove section 5 of this draft.
> 
> The reason:
> 
> The IETF should *NOT* document any comment on any "multiple standards"
> developed by other SDOs which are outside of the IETF's scope.
> 
> Especially standards like like SONET/SDH, CDMA/GSM.
> 
> The current text reflects the author's impressions, and since I don't
> believe that the authors were involved in the debates when these
> standards were developed, they *DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH* to comment
> authoritatively on them.

	Isn't that why this draft is targeted as an *individual and informational* draft?  Since that is the case, I don't see how your point is relevant to the document at hand.

> The IETF should refrain from documenting things that might offend
> other SDOs concerning standards issues in which IETF was or is not
> involved.

	That is your opinion. However, please observe that other SDOs document and cross-reference each others' works all the time often adding their "2 cents".  For example, take what the BBF does with many IETF standards.

	--Tom




> 
> Best regards, Huub.
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]