Subject: How IETF Protocols are Definition?

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 23:23:01 +0200

Hi All,
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Previos subject: Protocol Definition
Change the subject so we can focus on the reality of IETF purpose>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The thing is that the definition has been discussed on the list and
they were very good overall. However, the first question is not
defining but how our IETF-WGs define protocols. If you cannot find a
definition then write a RFC about the definition and you will notice
that it will not pass through until you define it in the limits that I
tried to define.

There are RFC that were/are in IETF that didn't mention there
applicability statement or use cases, which I think is very important
is designing any protocol as:
1- what was it designed for? and  2- how will it be used?
But thoes RFCs/protocols are for the Internet network, so that is why
IETF is involved. I don't think that IETF is standardizing protocols
that are/can not used in Internet network.

Therefore, all protocols/RFCs in IETF SHOULD be produced in consistent
with IETF purpose, and RECOMMENDED to define its
use-case/applicability. However, it will be nice to think to write a
draft of defining *IETF protocols and technologies*, which I may do in
future interested, because this thread is going long :)

Thanks, Donald and Tony for your points/comments, but we may see the
RFCs that update your pointed-RFCs and in the future it may be updated
as well to invision IETF purpose.

AB
===========================================

On 6/22/12, Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]> wrote:
> How about RFC 1661.
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> =============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>  155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
>  [email-masked]
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Tony Finch <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Randy Bush <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>>> > All protocols in IETF are based on the Internet or/and the IP.
>>>
>>> what a laugh.  try, for example, RFC 826
>>
>> Perhaps a better example is RFC 6325.
>>
>> Tony.
>> --
>> f.anthony.n.finch  <[email-masked]>  http://dotat.at/
>> Cromarty: Northeasterly backing westerly, 5 or 6. Moderate or rough.
>> Occasional rain. Moderate or poor.
>