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

[John Drake <jdrake@calient.net>]

Rob,

Why isn't the proposed disclaimer sufficient?  If you look in the base TE
drafts, for example, there are codepoints defined for use by specific,
named, vendors.  I think the same is also true for BGP.

Thanks,

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Coltun [mailto:rcoltun@redback.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 6:54 PM
To: ccamp@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: [IP-Optical] Re: Proposed text for the concatenation


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