Parallel discussions on the thread 'IANA considerations for RSVP' (postings by Steve
Trowbridge and David Charlap) and this thread (Loa Andersson) have shed some light on
a) how extensions to GMPLS protocols to satisfy ASON requirements shifted from IETF to
ITU, and b) the consequences:
steve>
*> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jan 23 13:42:03 2003
*> To: IETF-Announce: ;
*> Cc: RFC Editor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Internet Architecture Board <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*> From: The IESG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*> Subject: Document Action: LDP and RSVP Extensions for Optical UNI
*> Signal
Eric,
I'll restrict my answer to the role in a purely technical study group (like
Study Group 15). The answers vary when getting into work that deals with
tariff & regulatory matters.
In these study groups, virtually all of the input contributions (which are
written and submitted in advance of the
*>
*> Hi,
*>
*> I just saw the message that this document has been approved. I
*> have a question about the process.
*>
*> Definition in RFC 2434, "IETF Consensus - New values are assigned through
*> the IETF consensus process". The CR-LDP code points are clearly marked
*> a
Hi,
I just saw the message that this document has been approved. I
have a question about the process.
Definition in RFC 2434, "IETF Consensus - New values are assigned through
the IETF consensus process". The CR-LDP code points are clearly marked
as "IETF Consensus", not IESG Approval.
I have
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:08:32 EST, Eric Gray said:
> I believe this concern is dealt with by the fact that there is an IETF
> official site and various similarly official reflectors. If an error exist a
t
> an official site, the IETF community has a responsibility to point it out.
You know tha
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:18:09 EST, Eric Gray said:
> I'm not sure why an RFC might be granted perpetual unrestricted
> copyright
> but not allowed in derivative works. Is the intent to include copies as
> derivative
> works?
I think the goal is to prevent the creation of non-canonical versions
Stephen,
As a clarification question, what typically is the role assumed by the
class of member that includes scientific and industrial organizations?
Stephen Trowbridge wrote:
> Christian,
> Zhi has captured the essence.
> ITU-T has several classes of membership:
> - The highest, since ITU
We had already found one incorrect reference, and we
checked with the author, and he agrees it is incorrect
and that we should fix it. (UNI 1.0 instead of 1.1)
The document references ITU documents G.7713 and G.8080
Thos as clear references (I think) to documents as they
are known in ITU. So I see
Title: Message
I agree with
Zhi-Wei's points below. On the matter of concensus I think the original
email implied "agreement" as opposed to the ITU-T meaning of "consent".
The existence of the G.8080 and G.7713 (which are ITU-T "consented") do mean
that call and connection separation are a
Bert,
A common example of useful "derivative" work is to modify the
document
such that references include URLs and include it in web-sites. There are
any
number of private, or semi-private - and maybe one or two public - web
sites
that have provided hyper-linked versions of Internet Drafts in
Title: RE: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational
On the separation of issues, I think that's helpful. On issue 1, I think that there is definitely precedent on use of IETF protocols by the ITU-T (I think it was in the OAM area and SG13). SG15's use of GMPLS protocols has to
Hi Folks,
I can reaffirm Zhi's comment that call and connection separation
goes back to G.8080, an already approved ITU specification of
the G.ASON architecture.
I'm a bit puzzled by the argument that no one but IETF should be
allowed to extend an IETF protocol - I would think that extensions
ar
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 08:35:24AM -0500, Lin, Zhi-Wei (Zhi) allegedly wrote:
> 1. What other organizations may do to IETF (in this context (G)MPLS)
>protocols
>
> This won't be sorted out in this thread - and the only opinion so
> far is that it is a bad idea to let anyone else change o
Snipped
-Original Message-
From: Lin, Zhi-Wei (Zhi) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:24 AM
To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Scott Bradner (E-mail); '[EMAIL PROTECTED]';
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Cc: Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam); Malcolm Betts (E-mail); Stephen S
All,
Zhi-Wei is right this is procedural and intentionally so.
I do not criticize "ITU" or people that are active in the ITU for not
following the IETF procedures, especially since there is a big hole in
the procedural framework here.
The only one to blame for the lack in procedure are ourselves
Christian,
Zhi has captured the essence.
ITU-T has several classes of membership:
- The highest, since ITU is an organization under the umbrella of the United
Nations, are "member states". This consists of the 190 or so countries that
are members of the United Nations. In study groups that deal
I noticed today that I gave an incorrect answer to one of
Kireeti's points. He asked and I answered:
> > I would like to know what the intent is in not granting
> > "the right to produce derivative works",
> Did Steve Trowbridge not answer the first question?
>
This is in the Draft-aboulmagd-crld
In response to some questions that were not yet
answered in the below discussion
> -Original Message-
> From:
> Sent: donderdag 23 januari 2003 1:04
> To: Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
> Cc: Scott Bradner
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: quick review of the ason cr-ldp draft]
>
> < snip >
>
> >>My documented
As you may all know, when an IETF Last Call is issued,
people can send comments to IETF and/or IESG mailing lists.
Here is a comment (with some back and forth discussionbs)
that was only sent to Scott Bradner and myself, but that
deserves publicity. It is from a constructive and conscientious
Hi Christian,
This is one of the processes within the ITU-T standards body. The documents that is
submitted into these documents can have multiple levels of "status". I'm not sure what
the process is within the UK, but I have some idea of the process within the USA.
Maybe Stephen Trowbridge or
Lin Zhi-Wei
You mention a UK national position paper. Can you give me the references and
what made this "national"?
many thanks,
Christian de Larrinaga
> A clear U.K. national position paper was
>contributed to the meeting currently underway
>(delayed contribution 483), supporting that all
>th
Hi,
I wanted to respond
to some of the comments raised by Kireeti.
With respect to the issue re call
and connection separation, call and connection separation is an architectural
requirement that is fully documented within Rec. G.8080. Rec. G.8080 was
liaised to the IETF quite some time
Hi Loa,
See comments below...I guess none of these comments are technical, but more
procedural...
-Original Message-
From: Loa Andersson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 6:59 AM
To: Lin, Zhi-Wei (Zhi)
Cc: Wijnen, Bert (Bert); Scott Bradner (E-mail); '[EMAIL PRO
All,
taking a step back - I think we are discussing several issues in a mix
that makes it very hard to sort this out.
1. What other organizations may do to IETF (in this context (G)MPLS)
protocols
This won't be sorted out in this thread - and the only opinion so far
is that it is a bad
...speaking of deprecating things, apparently the convention of
using ">" to mark lines of quoted text has also been deprecated.
gja
Hi,
Please see below for some responses...
-Original Message-
From: John Drake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: donderdag 23 januari 2003 3:49
To: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)'; Kireeti Kompella
Cc: Bob Braden; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for AS
27 matches
Mail list logo
