mess re rsvp & ldp extensions

[Scott Bradner <sob@harvard.edu>]

we (the IESG) OKed some ITU-driven IDs that defined expensions 
to RSVP & LDP recently

as we talked about on the last IESG call we played a bit loose
with process because we overlooked the fact that one of teh documents
(draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt) defined LDP extensions that
were in the IETF consensus class and we did not do a last call
on that document itself - we did a last call on 
draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-crldp-ason-ext-02.txt which has a normative 
reference to this doc and said that it was reasonable
to think that the other last call thus could be said to include this
doc - note that RFC 2434 does not actually require a IETF last call
for "IETF Consensus" things - in fact it does not even suggest that
an IETF last call could be done

since the announcements on tehse docs there has been pushback in two areas

1/ that we did not do a specific last call on
   draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt

2/ that we did not get IETF consus in *support* of 
   draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-crldp-ason-ext-02.txt

even though a last-call is not required for IETF Consensus values
(maybe that is something that should get fixed - its kinda confusing
now) I think that we should recind the approval of this ID and
issue a last call - we will get an appeal if we do not and
doing the last call revoves some of the assumed failure to follow process
(even though we did follow process)

problems: 
	1/ what do we do about the IANA assignments while the
	   last call is happening - they have been written into (now)
	   approved ITU documents
	2/ what do we do if teh last call results in a consensus to
	   not approve the assignments (which is what I sort of expect
	   at this point since there has been such a fuss

what do we do about draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-crldp-ason-ext?
we generally do not get any significant comment on IETF last calls
this ID brought in some comment (which I sent a note about a while ago)
but not much until after we had approved it

	1/ do we need to start insisting that we will not approve
	   ietf-consensus IDs unless there is strong support on
	   a Last Call ( if so, nothing in the last few years would
	   have been OKed)

	2/ many of the comments since the list I sent have been of the
	   'I do not like the way they did this' or 'the ITU
	   is trying to pull a fast one' type - is that the kind of thing
	   that should block an ID?

part of the mess here is that we (the IETF) did not do a reasonable job
of being responsive to messages from the ITU many months ago

I think we should not unapprove draft-aboulmagd-ccamp-crldp-ason-ext
but whatever way we go there will be a mess

Scott