On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think in order for WG consensus to determine decisions wrt/ this > > document, it would no longer be a Cisco protocol. Cisco would have to > > give all change control authority to the IETF. > > andy, you have been around for a while. where did you get the idea it > was otherwise in the case of this document? > > It is not that clear from the discussions where "documenting a proprietary protocol" ends and "WG makes whatever changes and additions they want" begins. It is not clear how much backward compatibility with existing implementations is expected.
If the WG was starting with a set of requirements, and was open to multiple solution proposals, this would look more like a standards effort to me. Working backwards from running code seems like more of an Informational RFC task. > this is just another ietf document. it happens to document a protocol > used by many operators on many vendors' equipment. where does all this > ipr, proprietary, ... paranoia come from? [ that was a rhetorical > question; no need to answer ] > > randy > Andy
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
