A few more thoughts on this thread.
> All,
>
> I propose to completely remove section 5 of this draft.
>
> The reason:
>
> The IETF should *NOT* document any comment on any "multiple standards"
> developed by other SDOs which are outside of the IETF's scope.
>
> Especially standards like like SONET/SDH, CDMA/GSM.
>
> The current text reflects the author's impressions, and since I don't
> believe that the authors were involved in the debates when these
> standards were developed, they *DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH* to comment
> authoritatively on them.
Why do you suddenly think that it is important for only people with
knowledge of a topic to contribute to standards? Where does that leave the
ITU-T's input on MPLS? I can give you many examples of where people who had no
qualification as "experts" in a particular field have contributed to standards,
but I will refrain from doing so so as to not "offend other SDOs" as you say
below. 8)
> The IETF should refrain from documenting things that might offend
> other SDOs concerning standards issues in which IETF was or is not
> involved.
Since when does offending other SDOs become a concern of any other SDO?
Along these lines, let us take the flip-side of that example you give and ask
ourselves why the ITU-T's comments on MPLS do not offend IETF folks (or other
SDOs for that matter) and why there was not a concern of offending when those
were made?
--Tom
>
> Best regards, Huub.
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
