The MPLS WG Archive

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org>]

In message <4B6D09F3B826D411A67300D0B706EFDEB03D68@nt-exch-yow.pmc-sierra.bc.ca
>, Shahram Davari writes:
> Thanks for your clarification. A couple of points:
> 
> 1) Is the decision on how to deal with extension requests, an IESG
> decision or an IETF consensus is required?

If it is published as an informational recommendation by the IESG,
then no.  The IESG does have veto power over internet-drafts that are
on the standards track, therefore it might be worth paying attention
to their recommendations.

btw- I should also point out that Scott Bradner does not make this
stuff up without talking to the other members of the IESG.

> 2) No one can stop other SDOs from extending any IETF protocol

True.

> 3) The draft says:
> 
>    "No individual, vendor, SDO or forum should be able create what is viewed
>    to be a major extension to an IETF protocol on its own and
>    legitimately be able to claim that implementations that implement the
>    extension are compliant to the IETF specification."
> 
> So if the other SDOs don't claim IETF compliance, rather they claim their
> respective organizations compliance, there should not be any problem. And if 
> they mess up nobody would blame IETF for that.

This would represent a complete breakdown of relationships.  I'm not
making any value judgement, just an observation.

> -Shahram

Curtis


> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@fictitious.org]
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 5:34 PM
> >To: Shahram Davari
> >Cc: 'curtis@fictitious.org'; Alex Zinin; 'Mark.Jones@mail.sprint.com';
> >ccamp@ops.ietf.org; mpls@UU.NET
> >Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt 
> >
> >
> >
> >In message 
> ><4B6D09F3B826D411A67300D0B706EFDEB03D65@nt-exch-yow.pmc-sierra.bc.ca
> >>, Shahram Davari writes:
> >> Is IESG=Curtis?
> >> 
> >> -Shahram
> >
> >
> >That looks like a cheap shot of some kind.
> >
> >IESG == draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-00.txt
> >
> >  3.  Recommendation
> >
> >   The following principles are the main guiding principles concerning
> >   extensions to IETF protocol:
> >
> >    o All major extensions to IETF protocols should be done with direct
> >      involvement of the IETF.
> >
> >    o The decision on whether an extension is major or minor should be
> >      done with the direct involvement of the IETF.
> >
> >Those words are from the IESG draft.  They are not my words.
> >
> >I thought that was obvious enough in my prior reply, but apparently
> >not.
> >
> >Curtis
> >
> >
> >> >-----Original Message-----
> >> >From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:curtis@fictitious.org]
> >> >Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 4:53 PM
> >> >To: Alex Zinin
> >> >Cc: Shahram Davari; 'Mark.Jones@mail.sprint.com'; 
> >ccamp@ops.ietf.org;
> >> >mpls@UU.NET
> >> >Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt 
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >In message <18057706577.20030305113734@psg.com>, Alex Zinin writes:
> >> >> Wednesday, March 5, 2003, 11:12:10 AM, Shahram Davari wrote:
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> > It might be a good idea to require that all IETF 
> >protocols support
> >> >> > vendor-specific extensions, so that they could be used by 
> >> >other SDOs
> >> >> > and for experiments.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Ouch... draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-00.txt
> >> >> 
> >> >> Alex
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Looks like the IESG doesn't agree with Shahram on this.
> >> >
> >> >Curtis
> >> >
> >> 
> >
>