On 2/18/16 5:09 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Randy Bush <[email protected]
> <mailto:[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.

I'm not sure that imposing a particular model on standards work as a
whole rather than in specific is appropriate. Sometimes we draw
explicitly on sources that are already or largely fully formed on
arrival, sometimes we do not; sometimes we do waterfalls, in particular
if we need to converge, and some times we don't. We need to be fairly
careful to avoid a generalization that doesn't apply to some or a large
part of our efforts. On the Ops side of things we tend to be working
with and abundance of pre-existing work.

> 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
> 


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Reply via email to