RE: RFC-to-be: <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>

["Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>]

[ dropped the authors and ITU contact, added IESG]

Michelle, Bob, I have brought this to the attention of the
IESG, cause I am not so sure that we really want to label
code point assignments with stds-org or fora names.
The code point assignments do point to an RFC, and in such
an RFC, it should be clear what organisation asked for the
code points.

I'll ask it to be on the IESG agenda this coming Thursday.

Maybe Bob can summarize again what sort of targs he thinks
he would like to see, again with the arguments as to why
he thinks such is a good idea.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: IANA [mailto:iana@iana.org]
> Sent: vrijdag 31 januari 2003 3:16
> To: Lin, Zhi-Wei (Zhi); Bob Braden; bwijnen@lucent.com;
> BRaja@tellium.com; sjtrowbridge@lucent.com; osama@nortelnetworkss.com
> Cc: sob@harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: RFC-to-be: <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> I have been watching the conversation.  When everyone comes to
> a conclusion on how to label/prefix the rsvp parameters, can
> someone let me know?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Michelle
> IANA
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lin, Zhi-Wei (Zhi) [mailto:zwlin@lucent.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 12:32 AM
> > To: Bob Braden; bwijnen@lucent.com; iana@iana.org; 
> BRaja@tellium.com;
> > sjtrowbridge@lucent.com; zwlin@lucent.com; osama@nortelnetworkss.com
> > Cc: sob@harvard.edu
> > Subject: RE: RFC-to-be: <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>
> >
> >
> > Hi Bob,
> >
> > I agree that redundant info is never a bad thing. I was just
> > afraid of causing some problem. But as I said, I'm OK with this.
> > Since we have folded much of the OIF work under the ITU umbrella,
> > i.e., OIF came up with a solution for a problem. ITU was also
> > solving that problem, and decided that the existing solution from
> > OIF also meets the needs (don't want multiple solutions in the
> > industry...and all that...).
> >
> > As the OIF is not a standards body (and thus comes and goes), and
> > ITU is a standards body, prefixing with ITU is a better approach.
> >
> > What do you think?
> > Thanks
> > Zhi
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob Braden [mailto:braden@ISI.EDU]
> > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 5:27 PM
> > To: braden@ISI.EDU; bwijnen@lucent.com; iana@iana.org;
> > BRaja@tellium.com; sjtrowbridge@lucent.com; zwlin@lucent.com;
> > osama@nortelnetworkss.com
> > Cc: sob@harvard.edu
> > Subject: RE: RFC-to-be: <draft-bala-uni-ldp-rsvp-extensions-04.txt>
> >
> >
> >
> >    *>   *>
> >   *>   *> Just another note,
> >   *>   *>
> >   *>   *> Does this mean then that the "GMPLS" extensions would
> > also have that as prefix? What about some of the other
> > extensions, e.g., the "227" class-num that was recently 
> requested as well?
> >   *>
> >   *> Ahi,
> >
> > Sorry, typo, I meant to type Zhi!
> >
> > Bob
> >
>