Alper Yegin wrote:
DSLF has prepared a set of simple straight forward requirements that any
protocol proposal can be assessed against. So I don't see the reason why
PANA WG, where PANA expertise is, cannot assess its own protocol for this
simple set of requirements -- except for the very political agenda you two
are carrying.
Well, DHCP WG where DHCP expertise is can do the same on your I-D if IETF
agrees that DHCP is the right solution.
There is only one requirement that cannot be authoritatively answered by the
IETF PANA WG, that is "Must fit into TR-101 operational model", and we are
not answering that.
And we will be inviting DSLF to contact PANA WG for further questions and
clarifications about PANA (so that they don't get exposed to more
misinformation fed by the wrong people -- if you know what I mean ;)
Alper, this reads to me like you are operating under the misguided
assumption that WGs have membership, even that you get to decide who is
part of your WG and who is not. This is very dangerous territory.
- Mark
Alper
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Pruss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:29 AM
To: Alper Yegin
Cc: 'Jari Arkko'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Int-area] DSLF and PANA WG
Hi Jari,
While I certainly do not disagree that the IETF is welcome to undertake
requirements analysis of set protocols, solution tools and techniques
that could apply to the DSLForum requirements, I cannot think of a place
less suited to doing this with the cost of per use broadband and
interest of the Internet in mind than the PANA WG.
- Ric
Alper Yegin wrote, around 5/12/07 6:00 PM:
Hi Jari,
DSLF's May 25 liaison that stated:
"We are not currently aware of a solution specified in the industry that
meets our requirements. Can you advise us if you have a specified
solution
or whether a suitable solution is under your consideration."
I think what we can do in our response is to notify DSLF that IETF PANA
WG
was chartered for this problem space and the PANA protocol specification
is
approved by IETF for publication as a Proposed Standard.
Can we please include that in our response to DSLF along with whatever
else
would be said about the past int-area discussions?
As for the detailed requirement analysis, this is something we already
started doing in PANA WG. In order not to delay your liaison letter, you
could mention that requirements analysis is in progress. That analysis
should not hold us from sharing the aforementioned facts.
Regards,
Alper
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
