On 02/12/2011 13:29, t.petch wrote:
---- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Nadeau"<tnadeau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Huub helvoort"<huub.van.helvoort@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Adrian Farrel"<adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "The IESG"
<iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx>;<Ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 2:40 PM
I disagree with the document shepherd's evaluation of this document. This
document sets out to
standardize an additional code point to support a type of OAM for MPLS, and as
such the MPLS WG must
review the document for technical correctness. As far as I understand things,
all MPLS documents that have
requested ACH code points to-date have been on the standards track with MPLS
expert WG review, and so this
one should as well.
I don't doubt the history, but IANA gives a policy of
IETF Consensus (referencing [RFC4385]) which is defined as
" IETF Consensus - New values are assigned through the IETF
consensus process. Specifically, new assignments are made via
RFCs approved by the IESG. Typically, the IESG will seek
input on prospective assignments from appropriate persons
(e.g., a relevant Working Group if one exists)." [RFC2434]
If Standards Action had been the intention, then the WG should have
said so in RFC4385.
Tom Petch
--Tom
You are correct Tom that SA is not required by the registry policy.
However the observation is that all other documents that have
requested an ACH have been SA, and the question is hence
whether the contents of this document are such that it also
needs to be SA.
Stewart
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf