Hi, We still seem stuck. Could I get some AD help, please?
Thanks, Tony > On Aug 7, 2026, at 8:53 AM, Tony Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > It's now two weeks after the meeting. Could the chairs please proceed? > > Thanks, > Tony > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 2:30 PM Christian Hopps <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Can we please pause this discussion until after the meeting? I don’t think >> anything helpful is going on here that benefits the document or the WG. >> >> No one is raising bars on whims and no one is end running. >> >> Thanks, >> Chris. >> >> >>> On Jul 20, 2026, at 22:47, Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[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 allocation when an RFC will not be published.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] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 1:05 PM >>> To: Christian Hopps <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> Cc: Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>>; lsr-chairs <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>>; lsr <[email protected] <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[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 <http://cisco.com/> <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 8:50 AM >>> To: lsr-chairs <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> Cc: lsr <[email protected] <mailto:[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]
