[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational
- To: "Lin, Zhi-Wei (Zhi)" <zwlin@lucent.com>
- Subject: Re: Last Call: CR-LDP Extensions for ASON to Informational
- From: Scott W Brim <sbrim@cisco.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:42:15 -0500
- Cc: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>, "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>, "Scott Bradner (E-mail)" <sob@harvard.edu>, "'iesg@ietf.org'" <iesg@ietf.org>, "'ietf@ietf.org'" <ietf@ietf.org>, "'kireeti@juniper.net'" <kireeti@juniper.net>, "Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)" <hklam@lucent.com>, "Malcolm Betts (E-mail)" <betts01@nortelnetworks.com>, "Stephen Shew (E-mail)" <sdshew@nortelnetworks.com>, "Lyndon Ong (E-mail)" <lyong@ciena.com>, "Alan McGuire (E-mail)" <alan.mcguire@bt.com>, "Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve)" <sjtrowbr@ihmail.ih.lucent.com>
- In-reply-to: <D3F8FD817CC7DA408AEB2CAC631C042A98E5F5@nj7460exch012u.ho.lucent.com>
- Mail-followup-to: Scott W Brim <sbrim@cisco.com>,"Lin, Zhi-Wei (Zhi)" <zwlin@lucent.com>, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>,"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>,"Scott Bradner (E-mail)" <sob@harvard.edu>,"'iesg@ietf.org'" <iesg@ietf.org>,"'ietf@ietf.org'" <ietf@ietf.org>,"'kireeti@juniper.net'" <kireeti@juniper.net>,"Lam, Hing-Kam (Kam)" <hklam@lucent.com>,"Malcolm Betts (E-mail)" <betts01@nortelnetworks.com>,"Stephen Shew (E-mail)" <sdshew@nortelnetworks.com>,"Lyndon Ong (E-mail)" <lyong@ciena.com>,"Alan McGuire (E-mail)" <alan.mcguire@bt.com>,"Trowbridge, Stephen J (Steve)" <sjtrowbr@ihmail.ih.lucent.com>
- References: <D3F8FD817CC7DA408AEB2CAC631C042A98E5F5@nj7460exch012u.ho.lucent.com>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.4i
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 08:35:24AM -0500, Lin, Zhi-Wei (Zhi) allegedly wrote:
> 1. What other organizations may do to IETF (in this context (G)MPLS)
> protocols
>
> This won't be sorted out in this thread - and the only opinion so
> far is that it is a bad idea to let anyone else change or extend
> IETF protocols.
>
> <zhi>Last time I checked, the IETF didn't change the protocols, individuals did through contributions. The extensions requested for Call/Connection control were submitted by an individual. The fact the ITU weighed in requesting approval of the changes is a separate issue.</zhi>
Individuals bring in contributions (e-mail, drafts, opinions), but
whenever a "contribution" impacts standards or standards-track ideas,
the IETF structure decides what goes into standards and assigned
numbers.
At the time of the creation of the "sub-IP" area, a lot of thought went
into what the IETF should try to control and what it shouldn't. It's
evolved some but basically any changes to the IP protocols themselves
are closely controlled, or the situation gets out of hand. Things which
use those protocols do not have to be. This is a well-established
principle.