--On Friday, December 02, 2011 04:17 -0800 John E Drake
<jdrake@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Huub,
>
> In your email, below, you state:
>
> "This protocol has been defined in the ITU-T and should not be
> considered to be a MPLS protocol and therefore should not
> subject to the provisions of RFC 4929."
>...
> Doesn't this request for a code point for the subject protocol
> without review by the MPLS working group constitute an attempt
> to circumvent the decision made by that working group?
>
> I call on the nominated AD to redirect this work to the MPLS
> working group using the MPLS change process.
>...
Let me add one procedural observation to John Drake's summary.
We have a procedure for dealing with contributions to the RFC
Series and the networking literature for work that is really
independent of the IETF and IETF processes. It involves the
Independent Submission Stream and Independent Submission Editor
(see RFC 4846). I note that Independent Submission Handling has
not been requested here. That seems to be something of a
contradiction to some of the comments in Huub's note. By
contrast, if the document is properly an individual request to
the IESG, such requests normally originate and move through even
slightly-relevant WGs if they exist. An individual direct
request to an AD for publication is normally rejected out of
hand if there is a relevant WG because it is assumed to be an
end run on the WG's process.
We have one very important exception to that general model,
which is publication in the RFC Series of established standards
from other SDOs for the information of the Internet community or
to make those documents more accessible. Such publication
requests normally comes through the IETF Stream to an AD when
the document is needed as a normative reference from some
standards-track activity, or at the request of the other SDO via
liaison channels or, exceptionally, to the Independent
Submission Editor (again, for documents with no connection to
IETF work. None of those conditions seem to apply here.
So, while my reasoning is somewhat different, I reach the same
conclusion that John does: the document belongs in, and to, the
MPLS WG... or should be submitted to the Independent Submission
process (i) after that WG has completed all of its work and shut
down and(ii) it represents a fully-approved, deployed, and tests
standard from some other SDO. Both, not either.
regards,
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf