Alex,
>If this is indeed the process, then it gives an unfair power to IPv6 WG
>to undersupport (could read undermine) standards created by other WGs
>(Diffserv), which are IP standards, and which inter-depend with IPv6.
>This is in my view a broken process.
Process wise I think what you are suggesting doesn't scale. The IETF
creates many standards. Some of the standards are widely used
operationally, others are lightly used, and some are not used at all. If
every IETF w.g. was required to support all other IETF standards, then I
doubt the output would be very good. Individual working groups need to be
able to make their own decision that is appropriate for the work they are
doing.
I understand you are only really saying that IPv6 w.g. must support the
proposed Diffserv flow label definition as proposed in the draft, but you
keep doing it in general terms.
If you wish to change the IETF standards process to add the requirement
that IETF w.g. must support every other IETF standard (or perhaps that they
must support Diffserv), then the POISED w.g. is the place to propose it.
I think you are going a bit far to suggest that the fate of Diffserv
depends on what the IPv6 w.g. does with the flow label field. I suspect
that Diffserv will live or die based on IPv4 usage. Also, as IPv6 is
deployed much of it will be initially carried over IPv4. Any QoS solution
that is going to be end-to-end will have to deal with a mix of native IPv6
and IPv4/IPv6 headers.
Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
