Les, I have no interest in a fight.
I have posted my requests. You then chose to try to correct me, but did so incorrectly. I will not accept your interpretation. Our intent is to publish an RFC, but the foot-dragging exhibited by the working group is not compatible with reality. We have a release process. I cannot discuss where it is and how it will proceed, but I can assure you that the code will ship, and at that point, we will be squatting. Tick, tock, Tony On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 10:47 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]> wrote: > Tony – > > > > I think Chris and I have expressed the same point. > > I also think you seem to want to “pick a fight” – and I am not interested > in that. > > > > I will call your attention to the following from RFC 7120. Although RFC > 7120 is not directly applicable in this case, it is related and the concern > expressed there seems very relevant to this case. > > > > From https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7120.html#section-5 > > > > “There is a significant concern that the procedures in this document > > could be used as an end-run on the IETF process to achieve code point > > allocation when an RFC will not be published. For example, a WG or a > > WG chair might be pressured to obtain an early allocation for a > > protocol extension for a particular company or for another Standards > > Development Organization even though it might be predicted that an > > IETF LC or IESG Evaluation would reject the approach that is > > documented.” > > > > Les > > > > > > *From:* Tony Li <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2026 1:05 PM > *To:* Christian Hopps <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected]>; lsr-chairs < > [email protected]>; lsr <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [Lsr] Re: Adoption of draft-many-lsr-power-group > > > > Chris, Les, > > > > I wrote that code points "do not require adoption". That is accurate. A > 'SHOULD' is not a 'MUST'. You don't get to change it into one. What I > wrote originally was correct. > > > > I respect the 'SHOULD' and the work the experts do, but the fact of the > matter is that we have code, and it is going to ship regardless of > adoption. At this point, I cannot stop it. > > > > So, this is really up to you. You can allocate, or we can squat. Waiting > is out of the question. Your choice? > > > > Regards, > > Tony > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 9:56 PM Christian Hopps <[email protected]> wrote: > > Expert hat on: I do not believe Les is raising the bar. We (reg experts) > have followed the SHOULD advice rather consistently. We have always pushed > for WG adoption first. It’s why I mentioned the order, adoption and then > allocate, during the presentation. Yes, SHOULD is not MUST, but it’s also > not MAY. :) > > > > I think it’s worth giving the normal route a chance here before we look to > the exceptional one. > > > > Thanks, > > Chris. > > > > On Jul 20, 2026, at 20:12, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Les, > > > > What I wrote is correct. Please read what you quoted. That's a SHOULD, > not a MUST. > > > > You don't get to raise the bar on a whim. > > > > Tony > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 6:36 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) - ginsberg at > cisco.com <[email protected]> wrote: > > Tony – > > > > I don’t want to start an argument – just want to set the record straight. > > > > > https://www.iana.org/assignments/isis-tlv-codepoints/isis-tlv-codepoints.xhtml > states: > > > > “Note > > For IS-IS registries and value ranges maintained via the "Expert > > Review" [RFC8126] registration procedure, guidance for IESG-designated > > experts can be found in [RFC7370].” > > > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7370.html#section-4 states: > > > > “2. The Designated Experts SHOULD only consider requests that arise > > from I-Ds that have already been accepted as Working Group > > documents or that are planned for progression as AD Sponsored > > documents in the absence of a suitably chartered Working Group.” > > > > So what you say below is not correct. > > > > Les > > > > *From:* Tony Li <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2026 8:50 AM > *To:* lsr-chairs <[email protected]> > *Cc:* lsr <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [Lsr] Adoption of draft-many-lsr-power-group > > > > Hi, > > > > I would like to formally request that we start an adoption poll > of draft-many-lsr-power-group. > > > > I would also like to formally request code point assignment for this > document. The relevant code points are all under "Expert Review" and do > not require formal adoption before code point allocation. We would greatly > prefer not to squat on code point values if we do not have to. > > > > Regards, > > Tony > > > >
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
