Re: [T1X1.5] RE: [IP-Optical] Re: Proposed text for the concatenation

[Yangguang Xu <xuyg@lucent.com>]

Good point.

-- A protocol should provide mechanisms to support company proprietary
extensions. For example, opaque LSA, opaque TLV etc. 
-- But proprietary content shouldn't be treated/presented the same as
standardized materials on standard track document.

Thanks,

Yangguang

Rob Coltun wrote:
> 
> All,
>     despite the heated arguments I think the discussion is important to have.
> 
> I suggest that instead of  tagging non/pre-standard items in the current drafts
> that they be put into a separate Informational document  - this is the cleanest thing to do.
> We (the IETF) do have a tradition of publishing company proprietary protocols
> but not as standard track documents.
> 
> thanks,
> ---rob
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IP-Optical mailing list
> IP-Optical@lists.bell-labs.com
> http://lists.bell-labs.com/mailman/listinfo/ip-optical