Please see in line below.
Regards,
Malcolm
| Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx 29/09/2011 07:48 AM |
|
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.
[MB] The last call is for consensus approval by the IETF so this draft, if published, will be "the opinion of the IETF". Therefore the point raised by Huub is relevant.
> 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.
[MB] Big difference between referencing the work of another SDO from a standard and issuing a standard that make inaccurate comments about a standard that was developed in another SDO.
--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
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf