RE: draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-00.txt
Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com> Fri, 07 March 2003 14:50 UTC
Envelope-to: ccamp-data@psg.com
Delivery-date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 06:51:41 -0800
Message-ID: <4B6D09F3B826D411A67300D0B706EFDEB03D72@nt-exch-yow.pmc-sierra.bc.ca>
From: Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>
To: 'Alex Zinin' <zinin@psg.com>
Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org, mpls@UU.NET, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-00.txt
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 06:50:42 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
I don't mind, but I followed Scott Bradner's advice. Yours, Shahram >-----Original Message----- >From: Alex Zinin [mailto:zinin@psg.com] >Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 6:06 PM >To: Shahram Davari >Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; mpls@UU.NET; ietf@ietf.org >Subject: Re: draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-00.txt > > >Shahram, > > Since the draft in subject is not specific to the CCAMP or MPLS WGs, > or even the SUB-IP area, may I suggest that we don't abuse the > mailing lists of these WGs and take the discussion to ietf@ietf.org? > >-- >Alex > >Thursday, March 6, 2003, 11:35:16 AM, Shahram Davari wrote: >> 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 >
- RE: draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-00.txt Thomas D. Nadeau
- RE: draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-00.txt Shahram Davari
- Re: draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-00.txt Thomas D. Nadeau
- RE: draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-00.txt Shahram Davari
- Re: draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-00.txt Alex Zinin
- draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-00.txt Shahram Davari