Re: Proposed IESG statement on draft-srisuresh-ospf-te-05.txt

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>]

In message <6920362329.20030506145303@psg.com>, Alex Zinin writes:
>Bert,
>
>>> > Is this document really one that falls under the
>>> "interferes with WG?"
>>> 
>>> It is.
>>> 
>>> > I don't want to overuse this category to pushback on everything. My
>>> > impression was more like no body thinks very much of this document,
>>> 
>>> this too.
>>> 
>> So I think both points should be made, no?
>
>How about this.
>
>The IESG has considered draft-srisuresh-ospf-te. The subject of the
>draft is within the charter of the OSPF WG that is completing its work
>on OSPF traffic engineering extensions (draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic).
>draft-srisuresh-ospf-te was discussed in and rejected by the OSPF WG.
>Given the above, and the work items expected to be taken on by the
>CCAMP WG (including inter-area traffic engineering), the IESG believes
>that publishing draft-srisuresh-ospf-te as an RFC at this moment would
>interfere with ongoing activities within these WGs. The IESG recommends
>that the RFC Editor does not publish draft-srisuresh-ospf-te at this
>moment.
>

Sounds good.


		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
		http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)