|
Tom, I've let this sit a while, but wanted to respond on the following point: On 3/6/12 4:25 PM, t.petch wrote: -ur responsibility is to ourselves first and foremost, and to see that our process is followed. That process exists to, amongst other things, insure safe use and interoperable use of our own protocols.Which, Eliot, is where we part company. Given the interest in and uptake of MPLS outside the original definition, we have a wider responsibility, as we have in, say, managing the IP address or domain name space. If our process is broken, we should change it. Our processes should take into account that which we can control. Making the best recommendations for the use of our protocols on the Internet addresses your point about the "wider community". The IETF exists to serve that wider community, but when others attempt to use our works in a way that might harm our work, we equally have a responsibility to hold a line. I am NOT saying that in this instance, by the way, G.8113.1 harms IETF work if a proper code point is assigned. It would harm our work if a code point was simply expropriated. As with the last two, if we do not consider the needs of all parties, and not just ourselves, we may lose our influence in these matters. Yes we must follow our processes but in the interests of a wider community than just ourselves. Were this really true, then we must reject this request because of the likelihood of fragmented solutions that do not interoperate. Is that what you are arguing? Eliot |