On 11/09/2006 18:43 PM, Sam Hartman allegedly wrote: >>>>>> "Scott" == Scott W Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Scott> However, it is important that the IETF not *just* do > Scott> protocols. The IETF needs to consider how proposed > Scott> "architectures" fit in with all the other requirements on > Scott> the Internet. The IETF doesn't do protocol engineering, it > Scott> does Internet engineering. It is fine for other > Scott> organizations (not necessarily SDOs) to do service > Scott> requirements and scenarios. They can *propose* > Scott> architectures. If the IETF can support those architectures > Scott> in ways that are consistent with overall Internet design, > Scott> then fine. Otherwise the IETF should not be restricted to > Scott> just protocol extension/definition. The IETF has to think > Scott> of a bigger picture. > > > Completely agree. I'd rather see architectures and systems proposed > elsewhere, reviewed by the ietf, and then us develop the protocols. > There may be some cases where we do architecture work; I don't think > this is one of them.
Please help me figure out the essential differences between "architecture" that should be done in the IETF and "architecture" that can be done elsewhere. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
