On 09/29/2011 09:18 AM, Thomas Nadeau wrote:
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)
I would say that having "knowledge of a topic" is a requirement, but
that *expert* knowledge of a topic is not a requirement.
Just look at the IETF mailing lists. There are plenty of people with
something to say who do not to have expert "knowledge of a topic".
Almost certainly of us at one time or another.
Sometimes new ideas come from looking at a problem without the
preconceptions that come with being "an expert". Sometimes experts
really do know better. This is why we have discussions to build
consensus as to which ideas should be kept or discarded. Both experts
and nonexperts can have valuable contributions and improve each others
understanding.
-Andrew "Not an expert on standards or even SONET/SDH, CDMA/GSM"
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
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
