I support the draft. Multi-vendor interoperable implementations of the protocol the draft is asking for the allocation of a code point has been already tested and deployed and therefore I agree with Mr. Petch when he says we should approve it now to facilitate the migration of the existing boxes to an approved solution.
Best regards, Alessandro ------------------------------------------------------------------ Telecom Italia Alessandro Gerardo D'Alessandro Transport Innovation Via Reiss Romoli, 274 - 10148 Torino phone: +39 011 228 5887 mobile: +39 335 766 9607 fax: +39 06 418 639 07 -----Messaggio originale----- Da: t.petch [mailto:[email protected]] Inviato: martedì 6 marzo 2012 11:32 A: John C Klensin; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Oggetto: Re: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of anAssociated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC I am finding myself with some unfamiliar bedfellows on this issue, but yes, it should be approved - see inline. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "John C Klensin" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 12:04 AM Subject: Re: Last Call:<draft-betts-itu-oam-ach-code-point-03.txt> (Allocation of anAssociated Channel Code Point for Use by ITU-T Ethernet basedOAM) to Informational RFC <snip> > (2) Whether it is reasonable or appropriate for the IETF to use our > responsibility for code point assignments and consequent relationship > with IANA to try to keep protocols that are not consistent with our > design judgment and aesthetics --no matter how grounded in experience > and good engineering-- off the Internet. That is the "Internet > gatekeeper" function about which, as you know, I've expressed concern > in other contexts. I think the answer has got to be "we can, should, > and always will exercise quality control on stable specifications and > normative references but, unless we can justify being sure of our own > infallibility, we cannot and should not try to prevent another body > from deploying a specification on the Internet by using our > control of the registration model". Telling people why we > think their ideas are sub-optimal is fine, as is identifying any risks > we see in appropriate and visible places, but telling another group > what they can't do because the IETF doesn't like the idea isn't. We claim ownership of the name space on behalf of all parties, all SDOs governments, NGOs, anyone and anything, and this gives us a special responsibility to exercise that wisely. We should beware of imposing our ideas of correctness of any kind on another SDO - that is up to them to decide, not us. Of course, one open technical solution to a problem is best but the RFC Series is suitable cluttered with instances of the IETF failing to achieve that so any argument based on those grounds is hypocritical. A stable, approved reference is ideal, but we have been told of the widespread deployment of this approach using an experimental code point so the running code very much exists. If that is camping on something that it would be better if it were not, then that is something to fix, and something we can fix. There is no reason not to approve the allocation of a code point and furthermore, I believe we should do it now, to facilitate the migration of the existing boxes to an approved solution. If that leaves another SDO with an incompatability between what is working and what their documents say, well, the IETF has been there too; not a good place to be, but it is up to the SDO to resolve that, not the IETF. Tom Petch > And I think that distinction is entirely consistent with Russ's > suggestion. > > best, > john > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks.
