Subject: Re: [Isis-wg] Message from the ITU

From: Jonathan Sadler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 11:37:03 -0500

Jeff -

Comments inline...

Jonathan Sadler

Jeff Parker wrote:
> 
> Having had none of the experience that Les has had, and
> none of the insight that the Tony's have into the IETF
> inner workings, here is a proposal unencumbered by
> any information.
> 
>         1) IETF 'owns' (we need a better term, but I think
>         we know what this means) IP issues, such as 2966.
> 
>         2) JTC1 'owns' all pure OSI issues, and some (most?)
>         of the link layer.
> 
>         3) Issues such as 3-way handshake need to be worked
>         by both sides.  This could involve working through
>         the document in IETF (ITU) and then forwarding it
>         -before- it is frozen, to the ITU (IETF) for further
>         massaging.

Actually, it is three-sides, not both sides.  JTC1 and the ITU are not
related, just as ITU and the IETF are not related.  JTC1 is a joint
committee of ISO and IEC.

Even if the IETF and ITU work things out (which I think is quite
possible -- there is enough open-minded thinking in both groups), we
need JTC1 to also be a party to the agreement.

>         4) Some rules on who is working on what, and some
>         oversight is needed to bang the pipes when something
>         gets wedged and cannot advance.  Some method must be
>         provided to fast track documents that all agree upon.
> 
> - jeff parker
> 
> > Having worked on the ISO 10589:2001 draft within ISO, I would be very
> > surprised to learn that ANSI thinks it  owns the IS-IS spec.
> > As far as I know it is owned by JTC1/SC6/WG7.
> > ...
> > Les
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Isis-wg mailing list  -  [email-masked]
> http://spider.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg
============================================================
The information contained in this message may be privileged 
and confidential and protected from disclosure.  If the 
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an 
employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to 
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
reproduction, dissemination or distribution of this 
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received 
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by 
replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

Thank you.
Tellabs
============================================================
_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list  -  [email-masked]
http://spider.juniper.net/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: John Harper <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 09:52:32 -0700

I've been following this and trying to resist jumping in, but I guess
I just failed...

I don't understand why this matters. Regardless of what ITU or JTC1
think, the handful of vendors who are supplying this protocol all know
where the action is. Maybe there are some marginal vendors or
wannabes who believe they can influence things through the ITU,
but I'd be pretty surprised if they were to succeed.

I don't believe JTC1 will ever give this up, for the simple reason
that it is just about the only thing that gives WG7 any reason to
continue to exist. (When I quit as chair of WG2, the predecessor
of WG7, in 1992, it was because I really didn't see that there
was anything useful left to be done in that forum. 10 years later, I don't see
any reason to believe I was wrong).

         John

---

From: Tony Przygienda <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 06:22:43 -0700

> any reason to believe I was wrong).

All those are interesting points to be taken and I appreciate some
of the light these mails shed on the history of things and inner
clockworks. _Nevertheless_

1) please this should not become any kind of flames &  jell-o-throwing
    thread from hell. Any derogatory or pejorative comments vs. IETF
    workings, WG7, JTC1 or whatever other entity involved is probably
    uncalled for. I do not want to be 'soup-nazi' but airing dirty laundry
    on such lists never did anything good to anyone. This things are better
    solved in constructive ways behind and not in front of the peanut-gallery.
    That leads me to  a more important reason
2) this is a _technical_ mailing list. We are here to get _work done_, not
    get sucked into petty politics. If ITU wants to reference those documents,
    some constructive way may or may not be found but these should not
    congest these mailing list with 99.9% political/subjective mails.

this said, nose to the grindstone of technical issues or please constructive
proposals as of how to accomodate all the parties involved (a la Jeff Parker)

    thanks

    -- tony

---

From: Tony Przygienda <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 11:10:58 -0700

>proposals as of how to accomodate all the parties involved (a la Jeff Parker)
On a lighter note and a 2nd reading of my answer:
I have a bout with flu here and that seems to have affected my ability 
to distinguish 'this' and 'these' seriously
beside hitting the area of the brain governing the use of  prepositions

    sorry for that

    -- tony

---

From: Alex Zinin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 10:36:06 -0700

Folks,

 Some clarifications on the formal version of the current
 situation here. Whether we like it or not:

  1. ISO does own the IS-IS spec.

  2. The IETF ISIS WG produces protocol mechanisms as recommendations
     to ISO that are also published in the IETF as informational to
     let the community know what has been recommended.

  3. Other standards bodies cannot have a normative reference to IETF
     informational documents in their standards as this could easily
     be used to end-run around the standards process.

 The question of working out an agreement between IETF and ISO
 to have a clear and documented understanding on what IETF can and
 cannot do is on the plate that Bill and I share.

Alex Zinin