Subject: Re: IANA Action: Assignment of an IPV6 Hop-by-hop Option

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:43:58 -0400

Allison...

On Sun, 2005-06-26 at 10:22 -0700, Allison Mankin wrote:
> Ralph,
> 
> Under RFC 2780, IPv6 hop-by-hop option numbers are granted
> either with an approved IETF document, or an IESG review.

It seems that neither the reference to IESG review in RFC 2780, nor the
definition of IESG review in RFC 2434 give any indication of the basis
on which that review should be conducted.  Part of what I'm trying to
understand is why the IESG came to its conlcusion; that is, what
criteria did the IESG use and why did the IESG choose to use those
criteria.  I was especially surprised by the conclusion in the
announcement that "Reviewing this proposal within the IETF as an
alternative to the ongoing work would be a multi-year endeavor. The IESG
is pessimistic that this effort would ever achieve consensus." and I am
trying to understand whether it is appropriate for the IESG, even if it
were to come to such a conclusion during its review of the request, to
publicly state and use that conclusion as part of its rejection.

> IANA made the request to IESG under the last option in
> RFC 2780, and the IESG did its reviewing within the IESG.
> We followed the BCP process.  Note that we do not even
> have clear permission to provide the document we reviewed
> to the IETF.  IANA requests from other standards bodies
> where there is not an i-d do not presume an available 
> document.
> 
> There were several cross-area questions to the review:
> 
>   - IPSec, transport and reservation protocol technical review.
>   - Review of past similar cases.
>   - Implications of  the TIA standard published from same 
>     Roberts draft. TIA does not currently "borrow" a codepoint, 
>     but we needed to track this down.
>   - Contextualization of this request to our very recent 
>     discussions (May 2) with ITU about protocol extensions and 
>     codepoints.
> 
> These took a bit of time.

It's helpful to find out more of the context in which the IESG came to
its decision.

What does 'TIA does not currently "borrow" a codepoint, but we needed to
track this down.' mean?

> Are you trying to construct a timeline from the minutes?
> I'm afraid the IESG minutes are made from a tool-form focussed
> on the documents and WG charters, and tend to have limited 
> free-form information, something that really can only change if
> we add a person like the IAB has in Rich Draves.
> 
> Allison

Well, blaming the tools is a pretty lame excuse.  Even something as
simple as a read-only archive of IESG e-mail discussions - limited to
those issues (e.g., non-personnel) that can be discussed in public -
would reduce insularity and make the operation of the IESG more publicly
available...

- Ralph

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:46:01 -0400

Allison - in pervious e-mail to you, I made the statement "blaming the
tools is a pretty lame excuse", which makes several unwarranted
assumptions about motivations and the constraints within which the IESG
works.  I could have expressed my frustration with the lack of clarity
and detail in the public record of the IESG in a more productive way,
and I'm looking to keep this dialog productive as it moves forward...

- Ralph