Subject: RE: draft-raggarwa-rsvpte-pw-01.txt

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:27:36 -0500

Shahram,

That doesn't make it right ... this is a problem that happens much too 
often at the IETF - for example, one of the BOFs I attended in Minneapolis 
was very clearly an already implemented solution looking for a 
justification to become a WG to ratify their solution as a standards-track 
RFC (and it was also clear that they hadn't done their homework and both 
the IETF and IEEE already have mechanisms to solve that particular problem 
- but now I'm ranting off-topic).

Cheers,
Andy

At 3/23/2005 14:37 -0800, Shahram Davari wrote:
>If I recall correctly this rule has not been traditionally followed by 
>IETF. For example MPLS OAM Requirements was accepted as an MPLS WG draft 
>in Feb 2003, more than a year after MPLS-ping was accepted as WG draft in 
>March 2002.
>
>-Shahram
>
>What a concept ... have some requirements before we do the protocol design 
>...
>
>Cheers,
>Andy
_______________________________________________
pwe3 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pwe3