Re: [Raw] Alvaro Retana's Discuss on draft-ietf-raw-ldacs-10: (with DISCUSS)

[Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]>]

On April 18, 2022 at 5:37:06 PM, John Scudder wrote:


John:

Hi!


> I’m a little unclear as to your reasoning, let me see if I have it right:
>
> 1. You’re making the assertion that it’s not possible for the IETF to “reach
> rough consensus on a document that describes someone else's technology”. As I
> understand it, you’re not citing an authority for this — you just think it’s
> self-evident, like the statement “rain doesn’t fall up”.

When I read rfc2418, the discussions around consensus are related to
addressing disagreements about the topic the WG was chartered for.  In
general, that topic is technology development, so disagreements are
usually about design choices, deployment options, etc.

In the case of LDACS, the WG is not chartered nor is working on
developing it.  While people may express concerns about the technical
choices made, any resolution would happen outside the IETF.


Also compelling to me is this question that I found as one of the
issues to consider when creating a WG (§2.1/rfc2418):

    - Does the IETF have a reasonable role to play in the determination
      of the technology?  There are many Internet-related technologies
      that may be interesting to IETF members but in some cases the IETF
      may not be in a position to effect the course of the technology in
      the "real world".  This can happen, for example, if the technology
      is being developed by another standards body or an industry
      consortium.

I believe this point is significant because it clarifies that the IETF
should not be working on technology developed elsewhere.

To quote one of the authors: the "LDACS specification is written
within the framework of the Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR)
project" [1].


[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/raw/iyext4Ub8MgUjNYYPE7XOPpq1Y0/


...
> In any case we agree that the document should be published in some stream.

Yes, I believe the Independent Stream would be appropriate.


Alvaro.