A few more thoughts on this thread. > 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. Why do you suddenly think that it is important for only people with knowledge of a topic to contribute to standards? Where does that leave the ITU-T's input on MPLS? I can give you many examples of where people who had no qualification as "experts" in a particular field have contributed to standards, but I will refrain from doing so so as to not "offend other SDOs" as you say below. 8) > The IETF should refrain from documenting things that might offend > other SDOs concerning standards issues in which IETF was or is not > involved. Since when does offending other SDOs become a concern of any other SDO? Along these lines, let us take the flip-side of that example you give and ask ourselves why the ITU-T's comments on MPLS do not offend IETF folks (or other SDOs for that matter) and why there was not a concern of offending when those were made? --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