RE: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt

[Shahram Davari <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for your clarification. A couple of points:

1) Is the decision on how to deal with extension requests, an IESG
decision or an IETF consensus is required?

2) No one can stop other SDOs from extending any IETF protocol

3) The draft says:


   "No individual, vendor, SDO or forum should be able create what is viewed
   to be a major extension to an IETF protocol on its own and
   legitimately be able to claim that implementations that implement the
   extension are compliant to the IETF specification."

So if the other SDOs don't claim IETF compliance, rather they claim their
respective organizations compliance, there should not be any problem. And if 
they mess up nobody would blame IETF for that.

-Shahram

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 5:34 PM
>To: Shahram Davari
>Cc: '[e-mail]'; Alex Zinin; '[e-mail]';
>[e-mail]; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt 
>
>
>
>In message 
><[e-mail]
>>, Shahram Davari writes:
>> Is IESG=Curtis?
>> 
>> -Shahram
>
>
>That looks like a cheap shot of some kind.
>
>IESG == draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-00.txt
>
>  3.  Recommendation
>
>   The following principles are the main guiding principles concerning
>   extensions to IETF protocol:
>
>    o All major extensions to IETF protocols should be done with direct
>      involvement of the IETF.
>
>    o The decision on whether an extension is major or minor should be
>      done with the direct involvement of the IETF.
>
>Those words are from the IESG draft.  They are not my words.
>
>I thought that was obvious enough in my prior reply, but apparently
>not.
>
>Curtis
>
>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Curtis Villamizar [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> >Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 4:53 PM
>> >To: Alex Zinin
>> >Cc: Shahram Davari; '[e-mail]'; 
>[e-mail];
>> >[e-mail]
>> >Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt 
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >In message <[e-mail]>, Alex Zinin writes:
>> >> Wednesday, March 5, 2003, 11:12:10 AM, Shahram Davari wrote:
>> >> [...]
>> >> > It might be a good idea to require that all IETF 
>protocols support
>> >> > vendor-specific extensions, so that they could be used by 
>> >other SDOs
>> >> > and for experiments.
>> >> 
>> >> Ouch... draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-00.txt
>> >> 
>> >> Alex
>> >
>> >
>> >Looks like the IESG doesn't agree with Shahram on this.
>> >
>> >Curtis
>> >
>> 
>