Re: [Rmt] FEC ID allocation

[Lorenzo Vicisano <lorenzo at cisco.com>]

All, please see inline:

On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:54:59AM -0500, Mark Watson wrote:
> All,
> 
> To answer Rod's first question, "IETF Consensus" is defined in RFC 2434
> as follows:
> 
> "IETF Consensus - New values are assigned through the IETF
>  consensus process. Specifically, new assignments are made via
>  RFCs approved by the IESG. Typically, the IESG will seek
>  input on prospective assignments from appropriate persons
>  (e.g., a relevant Working Group if one exists)."
> 
> So, there is no _requirement_ that specific working groups are
> consulted, but if we don't trust the IESG to consult appropriate working
> groups before declaring that there is consensus in the IETF on
> something, then we are in a bad way generally!
> 
> We have defined in quite some detail in the FEC Building Block what an
> "FEC Scheme" is and what it must specify. So, at the very least requests
> for new FEC Encoding ID allocations should be compliant to the FEC
> Building Block and some IETF review will be needed to ensure this. If
> you want that to be open review rather than a potentially closed review
> by an appointed expert then we should stick with (A) (and that is my
> preference).

The point above makes C) unappealing to me: we want FEC ID
specifications to be compliant to the FEC Building Block requiremnts,
however this compliance will be hard to enforce without the usual
IETF review process: there is only so much that an "expert review" can
do.

The above is my personal view, not expressed as WG chair.

	thanks,
	Lorenzo

> 
> Furthermore, the concept of "Under-specified" schemes was created
> precisely for people who do not want to go through that review process.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mark
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rmt-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:rmt-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Rod.Walsh at nokia.com
> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 8:09 PM
> To: lorenzo at cisco.com; rmt at ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [Rmt] FEC ID allocation
> 
> Do A and B assume 2 week RMT and FECFRAME WGLCs? (Since informational
> RFCs can pass by hidden from real WG expert review). Informational or
> standards track seems a fair requirement so that non IETF specification
> do not need to hand over update rights to the IETF (i.e. I don't like
> (B)).
> 
> Between A and C I'll take the week to think about it. (A is clearly
> easier for IETF WGs and is better for transparency, C is clearly easier
> for non IETF WGs and encourages harmony). Maybe C, with strong
> recommendation for at least an informational RFC and the right for RMT
> and FECFRAME (and IESG) to reject the initial requiest and require at
> least an infomrtaional RFC if the non IETF document is overly alien and
> cryptic? <C needs to state the "format" of the request to help external
> organizations, but it can be quite trivial>. To be continued...
> 
> Cheers, Rod.
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: rmt-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:rmt-bounces at ietf.org] On 
> >Behalf Of ext Lorenzo Vicisano
> >Sent: 23 November, 2005 19:47
> >To: rmt at ietf.org
> >Subject: [Rmt] FEC ID allocation
> >
> >At the Vancouver meeting we had a discussion on possibly 
> >revising the strategy for allocating FEC Encoding IDs. The 
> >discussion was inconclusive and hence it was decided to bring 
> >this issue to the list, starting a 1-week WG last-call on it.
> >
> >The current strategy for allocating FEC Encoding IDs is
> >
> >  A) IETF-Consensus, i.e. requiring an IETF RFC that specifies all the
> >     requested information (see 
> >draft-ietf-rmt-fec-bb-revised-02) and that
> >     instructs IANA to assign a specific ID.
> >
> >One alternative proposal on the table was to transform IETF 
> >consensus into
> >
> >  B) Standard Action, i.e. requiring a Standard-Track IESG approved
> >     RFC
> >
> >Another was:
> >
> >  C) IETF-Consensus OR [ Specification-Required AND Expert Review ],
> >     i.e. allow also non IETF specification to assign IDs 
> >subject to Expert
> >     Review.
> >
> >I would like to hear any opinion on these options by Wed November 30th.
> >Please check the meeting minutes for additional background information.
> >
> >Note that the strategy for allocating FEC Instance IDs is 
> >"First Come First Served" and is not being discussed here.
> >
> >	thank you,
> >	Lorenzo
> >     
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Rmt mailing list
> >Rmt at ietf.org
> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rmt mailing list
> Rmt at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt

_______________________________________________
Rmt mailing list
Rmt at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rmt