RE: [PWE3] Last Call: 'IANA Allocations for pseudo Wire Edge to E dge Emulation (PWE3)' to BCP

"Gray, Eric" <Eric.Gray@marconi.com> Tue, 18 October 2005 21:20 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ERysT-00050i-SV; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 17:20:09 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ERysR-00050R-Kt; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 17:20:07 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA29050; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 17:19:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com ([169.144.68.6]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ERz43-0004qQ-91; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 17:32:07 -0400
Received: from mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.12]) by mailgate.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j9ILJtrP002340; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 17:19:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com (uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com [169.144.2.221]) by mailman.pit.comms.marconi.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA19739; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 17:19:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by uspitsmsgrtr01.pit.comms.marconi.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <40SXX5HZ>; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:19:54 -0300
Message-ID: <313680C9A886D511A06000204840E1CF0C885FB4@whq-msgusr-02.pit.comms.marconi.com>
From: "Gray, Eric" <Eric.Gray@marconi.com>
To: 'Luca Martini' <lmartini@cisco.com>, "Gray, Eric" <Eric.Gray@marconi.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:19:53 -0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a1852b4f554b02e7e4548cc7928acc1f
Cc: 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand' <harald@alvestrand.no>, Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>, pwe3@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [PWE3] Last Call: 'IANA Allocations for pseudo Wire Edge to E dge Emulation (PWE3)' to BCP
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

Luca,

	Thanks!

--
Eric

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: ietf-bounces@ietf.org 
--> [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
--> Luca Martini
--> Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 1:38 PM
--> To: Gray, Eric
--> Cc: 'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'; ietf@ietf.org; pwe3@ietf.org;
--> iesg@ietf.org; Stewart Bryant
--> Subject: Re: [PWE3] Last Call: 'IANA Allocations for pseudo 
--> Wire Edge to
--> E dge Emulation (PWE3)' to BCP
--> 
--> 
--> Eric,
--> 
--> Last Call Has ended , and I did not see any objections to 
--> using the IETF 
--> consensus instead of "reserved" . ( which I mean to be 
--> according to rfc 
--> 2434 )
--> 
--> I also support having the working changed from reserved to "IETF 
--> consensus according to rfc 2434"  as suggested by Stewart.
--> I believe that this will give the IETF the same degree os 
--> control, over 
--> the allocations , but will significantly cut down on bureaucracy.
--> 
--> Luca
--> 
--> 
--> Gray, Eric wrote:
--> > Harald,
--> > 
--> > 	Yes, word-smithing is hard.  In this case, there was
--> > one position that the majority of the number spaces might
--> > be used for vendor specific applications (where "vendor" -
--> > in this case - includes organizations in general and vendor
--> > cooperative fora specifically).
--> > 
--> > 	The choice for "Standards Action" would eliminate at
--> > least part of the number space from being used in this way
--> > - even at the cost of going through the last call process.
--> > It's hard to be both vendor proprietary and standard.
--> > 
--> > 	Most of the negotiation process in this case has been
--> > with an awareness of RFC 2434 as Thomas Narten and no less
--> > than two current ADs have previously referred discussion to 
--> > this RFC at least a few times.
--> > 
--> > --
--> > Eric
--> > 
--> > --> -----Original Message-----
--> > --> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
--> > --> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 6:38 PM
--> > --> To: Gray, Eric; Stewart Bryant; iesg@ietf.org
--> > --> Cc: pwe3@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
--> > --> Subject: RE: [PWE3] Last Call: 'IANA Allocations for pseudo 
--> > --> Wire Edge to
--> > --> E dge Emulation (PWE3)' to BCP
--> > --> 
--> > --> 
--> > --> 
--> > --> 
--> > --> --On onsdag, oktober 05, 2005 19:00:42 -0300 "Gray, Eric" 
--> > --> <Eric.Gray@marconi.com> wrote:
--> > --> 
--> > --> > Harald,
--> > --> >
--> > --> > 	The trouble is - know it or not - this "language choice"
--> > --> > is the result of a lot of wrangling.  Your comment is a late
--> > --> > comer to the "party" as we have been round and round on this
--> > --> > as well as other issues relating to this document.  What you
--> > --> > see now is the current negotiated position, and it would be
--> > --> > very nice if we did not have yet another round of 
--> negotiations
--> > --> > because someone else is not exactly happy with what 
--> we have...
--> > --> 
--> > --> sure. When you say "....are allocated through the IETF 
--> > --> Consensus Process", 
--> > --> I'm just not sure if you are referring to this from 2434:
--> > --> 
--> > -->       IETF Consensus - New values are assigned 
--> through the IETF
--> > -->            consensus process. Specifically, new assignments 
--> > --> are made via
--> > -->            RFCs approved by the IESG. Typically, the 
--> IESG will seek
--> > -->            input on prospective assignments from 
--> appropriate persons
--> > -->            (e.g., a relevant Working Group if one exists).
--> > --> 
--> > --> It's been a troublesome choice in the past (at the 
--> moment, the IESG 
--> > --> position is, I believe, that at least a Last Call is needed 
--> > --> for such an 
--> > --> assignment, but not necessarily an approved internet-draft, 
--> > --> although that 
--> > --> is preferred).
--> > --> 
--> > --> I'm happy to have PWE3 suggest what it wants to suggest - 
--> > --> my worry is 
--> > --> chiefly that the IETF has a shared understanding of what 
--> > --> PWE3 is suggesting.
--> > --> 
--> > --> Wordsmithing is hard.
--> > --> 
--> > -->                             Harald
--> > --> 
--> > --> 
--> > --> 
--> > --> 
--> > --> 
--> > 
--> > _______________________________________________
--> > Ietf mailing list
--> > Ietf@ietf.org
--> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--> 
--> 
--> _______________________________________________
--> Ietf mailing list
--> Ietf@ietf.org
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
--> 

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf