RE: draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-00.txt

[Shahram Davari <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, I am happy to hear that my proposal is in fact in-line with
current IETF standardization process. However, my proposal is about allowing 
other SDOs to develop extensions to IETF protocols, even if IETF does
not agree to those extension, while the iesg draft prohibits other SDOs from 
developing any extension to IETF protocols without IETF's approval.

-Shahram



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas D. Nadeau [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 12:43 PM
>To: Shahram Davari; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-00.txt
>
>
>
>         I don't see how your proposal differs from the current
>IETF standards process. How could extensions created by other
>SDOs be considered IETF compliant without being passed through the
>process within the IETF?  If they are passed through the processes and
>are eventually approved as standards, then they are called 
>IETF compliant.
>Where exactly do you see this as being broken and requiring 
>additional red
>tape?
>
>         --Tom
>
>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>I would like to make an alternative proposal to what is 
>proposed in this 
>>draft.
>>I think that IETF should not prevent other SDOs from 
>developing extensions 
>>(minor or major),
>>to IETF protocols, as long as they don't call those 
>extensions being IETF 
>>compliant.
>>I think IETF could recommend that the other SDOs present 
>their protocol 
>>extensions
>>to IETF (in the form of a draft). The IETF community then has 
>3 choices:
>>1) IETF agrees with the requirements and nature of the 
>extensions and find 
>>them useful. In that case IETF could engage in technical 
>discussions with 
>>the other SDO and reach to a mutually agreeable draft, which 
>could then be 
>>advanced to Proposed Standard.
>>
>>2) IETF agrees with the requirement, but does not agree with 
>the proposed 
>>extension, and prefers other solutions/extensions that it thinks meet 
>>those requirements. In that case IETF could develop its solution and 
>>present it to the requesting SDO. If that SDO is satisfied with
>>IETF's solution, then fine, otherwise nobody can prevent them from 
>>developing their own extension. If that happens then there 
>would be two 
>>solutions for the same requirements
>>and we should let the Market decide which solution/extension 
>do they prefer.
>>
>>3) IETF does not agree with the requirement for such 
>extensions at all. In 
>>that case, the
>>other SDO should be free to developed their own extension, 
>provided they 
>>don't call those extensions to be IETF compliant.
>>
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>-Shahram
>
>