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

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Alvaro 

The reason why we wish to publish this document is that it becomes a source of good information from the matter expert tailored for IETF consumption. Like a good Comsoc paper could be.

This information is not readily available outside the IETF, because LDACS is very new.

 We do not mean to standardize anything with this RFC. We want to know better what’s below our layer. Ldacs is effectively one of the technologies RAW should support.

I totally buy that text could be needed on the LLC, if that’s the issue. More text on IPv6 feasibility over LDACS, sure. Still a desirable publication, even for defining IPv6 over Foo.

Keep safe,

Pascal

> Le 19 avr. 2022 à 18:10, Alvaro Retana <[e-mail]> a écrit :
> 
> 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.
> 
> -- 
> RAW mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raw