|
Question(s): |
14/15 |
Meeting, date: |
December 24, 2003 |
|
|
Study Group: |
15 |
Working Party: |
3 |
|
|
Source: |
ITU-T SG15,
Q.14/15 |
|||
|
Title: |
Liaison Statement
To IETF Transport Area on Change Procedures for RSVP |
|||
|
LIAISON
STATEMENT |
||||
|
To: |
IESG; IETF Transport Area Directors |
|||
|
Approval: |
ITU-T SG15 Q14/15 Correspondence |
|||
|
For: |
Action |
|||
|
Deadline: |
February 13, 2004 |
|||
|
Contact: |
Hing-Kam Lam Lucent Technologies USA |
Tel: +1 732-949-8338 Fax: +1 732-949-1196 Email: hklam@lucent.com |
||
|
|
||||
Q14/15
thanks IETF Transport Area Directors for the opportunity to comment on the
document “Procedures for Modifying RSVP”
<draft-kompella-rsvp-change-01.txt>.
Q14/15 would like to offer the following comments.
(1) In
section 1, there is the paragraph:
A standards body other than the IETF that wishes to
obtain an assignment for an RSVP entity must decide from which type of
name/number space they desire their assignment be made from, and then submit
the appropriate documentation.
Clarification on “appropriate documentation” is
needed. Is an incoming ITU-T liaison statement to IETF considered as an
appropriate documentation?
(2) What
ranges would apply for RSVP entities requested by standards bodies outside of
IETF?
(3) In
the past we have obtained assignment for RSVP entities and documented in
informational RFC. Such procedure seems not covered in
<draft-kompella-rsvp-change-01.txt>.
(4) The
draft is a specific policy for RSVP-TE development. SDOs wanting to use RSVP-TE, especially for non-IP purposes may
have their proposed extensions rejected if those reviewing it in the IETF are
not familiar with the application domain.
Could the IESG please clarify what process should be used if there is
disagreement with an IETF ruling?
(5) Does
the IESG see this becoming a general approach to all protocols that are/were
developed at the IETF? Would this draft
be setting precedent?
(6) Both
OIF and ITU-T SG15 sent liaisons to CCAMP regarding RSVP-TE and in the absence
of response, proceeded with Informational RFCs 3474 and 3476. These enabled the completion and consent of
OIF UNI 1.0 and G.7713.2 respectively.
Only recently has CCAMP liaised to SG15 regarding G.7713.2. It seems then that the established
ITU-T/IETF liaison process should be more effectively used first before adding
another policy.
________________