All, It is up to the sponsoring AD to decide on the review process. The mpls wg co-chairs will discuss this this week, and we'll let the AD know what we think.
With my wg chair hat off I have to say that more review is better than less. I assume that the will inform us of the review process as soon as it has been decided. /Loa Skickat från min iPhone 2 dec 2011 kl. 21:24 skrev Azhar Sayeed <[email protected]>: > Shouldn't this document be referred to MPLS WG and PWE3 WG so that we can > discuss the merits and demerits of allocating yet another request for the > code point... > The name of the document suggests it has to do with the official ITU request > for a code point ..but nowhere in the document does it actually say that... > To me this is not part of Inter SDO communication and even if it was it > should still get the approval of the MPLS and PWE3 WG before the code point > assignment. > > Azhar > > t.petch wrote: >> ---- Original Message ----- >> From: "Thomas Nadeau"<[email protected]> >> To: "Huub helvoort"<[email protected]> >> Cc: "Adrian Farrel"<[email protected]>; >> <[email protected]>; "The IESG" >> <[email protected]>;<[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 2:40 PM >>> >>> I disagree with the document shepherd's evaluation of this document. This >> document sets out to >>> standardize an additional code point to support a type of OAM for MPLS, and >>> as >> such the MPLS WG must >>> review the document for technical correctness. As far as I understand >>> things, >> all MPLS documents that have >>> requested ACH code points to-date have been on the standards track with MPLS >> expert WG review, and so this >>> one should as well. >> >> I don't doubt the history, but IANA gives a policy of >> IETF Consensus (referencing [RFC4385]) which is defined as >> " IETF Consensus - New values are assigned through the IETF >> consensus process. Specifically, new assignments are made via >> RFCs approved by the IESG. Typically, the IESG will seek >> input on prospective assignments from appropriate persons >> (e.g., a relevant Working Group if one exists)." [RFC2434] >> >> If Standards Action had been the intention, then the WG should have >> said so in RFC4385. >> >> Tom Petch >>> >>> --Tom >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
