Re: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational

Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net> Wed, 15 January 2003 03:14 UTC

Received: from ran.ietf.org (ran.ietf.org [10.27.6.60]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20413; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:14:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 18YdzB-0004xY-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:13:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18YdyU-0004wI-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:12:18 -0500
Received: from merlot.juniper.net (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA20277; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:07:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from kummer.juniper.net (kummer.juniper.net [172.17.12.90]) by merlot.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0F3BCS74366; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:11:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kireeti@juniper.net)
Received: from localhost (kireeti@localhost) by kummer.juniper.net (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h0F3BCQ47376; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:11:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kireeti@juniper.net)
X-Authentication-Warning: kummer.juniper.net: kireeti owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:11:12 -0800
From: Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>
To: Bob Braden <braden@ISI.EDU>
cc: iesg@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational
In-Reply-To: <20030114163836.T46812-100000@kummer.juniper.net>
Message-ID: <20030114183719.I47224-100000@kummer.juniper.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Kireeti Kompella wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Bob Braden wrote:

> > Indeed, that is what "IETF consensus" means, isn't it?

Having wisely been advised to reread RFC2434 for the definition of
'IETF Consensus', I did so:

"Specifically, new assignments are made via RFCs approved by the IESG."

The RFC doesn't have to be Standards Track; however, I assume that the
RFC needs IETF consensus for publication.

If the assignments requested are from the IETF Consensus space, I do
not consider the current document ready for publication.

If the assignments are from the vendor private or experimental space,
this document is not needed; indeed, as I understand RFC 3036, IANA
management of these spaces is not needed either.

Kireeti.