All, It is up to the sponsoring AD to decide on the review process. The mpls wg co-chairs will discuss this this week, and we'll let the AD know what we think. With my wg chair hat off I have to say that more review is better than less. I assume that the will inform us of the review process as soon as it has been decided. /Loa Skickat från min iPhone 2 dec 2011 kl. 21:24 skrev Azhar Sayeed <asayeed@xxxxxxxxx>: > Shouldn't this document be referred to MPLS WG and PWE3 WG so that we can discuss the merits and demerits of allocating yet another request for the code point... > The name of the document suggests it has to do with the official ITU request for a code point ..but nowhere in the document does it actually say that... > To me this is not part of Inter SDO communication and even if it was it should still get the approval of the MPLS and PWE3 WG before the code point assignment. > > Azhar > > 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 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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