RE: draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-00.txt

[Shahram Davari <Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com>]

I don't mind, but I followed Scott Bradner's advice.

Yours,
Shahram

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alex Zinin [mailto:zinin@psg.com]
>Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 6:06 PM
>To: Shahram Davari
>Cc: ccamp@ops.ietf.org; mpls@UU.NET; ietf@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: draft-iesg-vendor-extensions-00.txt
>
>
>Shahram,
>
>  Since the draft in subject is not specific to the CCAMP or MPLS WGs,
>  or even the SUB-IP area, may I suggest that we don't abuse the
>  mailing lists of these WGs and take the discussion to ietf@ietf.org?
>
>-- 
>Alex
>
>Thursday, March 6, 2003, 11:35:16 AM, Shahram Davari wrote:
>> Hi All,
>
>> I would like to make an alternative proposal to what is 
>proposed in this draft.
>> I think that IETF should not prevent other SDOs from 
>developing extensions (minor or major),
>> to IETF protocols, as long as they don't call those 
>extensions being IETF compliant.
>> I think IETF could recommend that the other SDOs present 
>their protocol extensions
>> to IETF (in the form of a draft). The IETF community then 
>has 3 choices:
>
>> 1) IETF agrees with the requirements and nature of the 
>extensions and find them useful. In that case IETF could 
>engage in technical discussions with the other SDO and reach 
>to a mutually agreeable
>> draft, which could then be advanced to Proposed Standard.
>
>> 2) IETF agrees with the requirement, but does not agree with 
>the proposed extension, and prefers other solutions/extensions 
>that it thinks meet those requirements. In that case IETF could develop
>> its solution and present it to the requesting SDO. If that 
>SDO is satisfied with
>> IETF's solution, then fine, otherwise nobody can prevent 
>them from developing their own extension. If that happens then 
>there would be two solutions for the same requirements
>> and we should let the Market decide which solution/extension 
>do they prefer.
>
>> 3) IETF does not agree with the requirement for such 
>extensions at all. In that case, the
>> other SDO should be free to developed their own extension, 
>provided they don't call those extensions to be IETF compliant.
>
>
>
>> Thanks,
>> -Shahram
>