Re: Last Call: Use of ISO CLNP in TUBA Environments to Proposed Standard

[[e-mail]]

Regarding the comments on suitability of this item for the standards track:

I think the IAB/IESG/IETF created a predicament for themselves by putting
IDPR on the standards track.  Unless some technicality exists of which
I'm unaware, there is a good argument that the IDPR decision is *the*
relevant precedent.  I've appended the IAB statement on that occasion to
this message for the sake of any who care, but don't have it handy.
At this moment, if the IESG were to decide not to put this TUBA document
on the standards track because of the objections advanced in the emails
I've seen, I would not understand why IDPR is on the standards track.

I'm not taking a position in this comment on the merits of either TUBA
or IDPR either technically or as candidates for standardization.

/Bill Barns
 (speaking as an individual only)


========
From: [e-mail] (Bob Braden)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 14:25:25 -0700
Posted-Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 14:25:25 -0700
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: IAB Protocol Action: IDPR to Proposed Standard
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]


The IAB has accepted the IESG recommendation that the InterDomain
Policy Routing (IDPR) Protocol be elevated to Proposed Standard
Status.

   IDPR is define in the Internet Drafts:

   o <draft-ietf-idpr-architecture-04> "An Architecture for Inter-Domain
      Policy Routing", and 

   o <draft-ietf-idpr-specv1-02> "Inter-Domain Policy
      Routing Protocol Specification: Version1"

   An overview document is available as Internet Drafts 
   <draft-ietf-idpr-summary-00> "IDPR as a Proposed Standard".
   IDPR is the product of the IDPR Working Group of the IETF.

Rationale:

    In May 1989, Dave Clark published RFC-1102, "Policy Routing in
    Internet Protocols".  After three years of further development
    within IETF, many of these ideas have been realized in IDPR.

    Unfortunately, it is not clear that there is even "rough consensus"
    on all particulars of this IDPR specification.  This divergence of
    expert opinion was reflected in the lengthy technical debate
    following the Last Call and in many private comments.  However, we
    believe that the general policy routing provided by IDPR (following
    Clark's model) may be important to the future of the Internet, and
    that talking about it is not enough; experience is needed.  The
    Working Group has stated, and the IESG has agreed, that designating
    IDPR a Proposed Standard will foster a process of prototyping and
    limited deployment, to allow the Internet technical community can
    gather some needed experience with policy routing.  To quote from
    the IESG summary:

       "IDPR can be deployed in an incremental manner and without
       conflict with currently deployed routing protocols.  ...
       
       This deployment is not in conflict with the
       ongoing efforts to select and develop the next generation
       routing and addressing architecture and associated protocols."

    IDPR has satisfied all formal requirements (ref. RFC-1264) for
    entering a new routing protocol into the standards track, so there
    are no procedural grounds for deferring its entry.

    Standardizing a technical specification is not meant to imply
    anything about its applicability, i.e., when and if it is
    appropriate to use IDPR.  For guidance on the applicability of
    IDPR, refer to the forthcoming Router Requirements specification.