Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

FW: Path forward with draft-ohba-802dot21-basic-schema in the IETF



The following communication has been received from IETF.
This may be an opportunity to revisit the schema and decide on an appropriate way forward. I will include this topic in the agenda and we can discuss this next week.

Best Regards
-Vivek

-----Original Message-----
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 12:57 PM
To: Subir Das; yohba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Gupta, Vivek G
Cc: kenichi.taniuchi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Pasi Eronen; iesg@xxxxxxxx; draft-ohba-802dot21-basic-schema@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Path forward with draft-ohba-802dot21-basic-schema in the IETF

The IESG has discussed this document today. For history Yoshihiro 
submitted this document to for publication at the IETF for two reasons. 
One, to register a scheme URI in the IETF space. Two, to get IETF review 
for the schema. A fair amount of review has now taken place and has 
changed the document a bit.

However, the IESG had two main comments with respect to this document. 
The first comment is that for mere registration of an URI it is not 
necessary to publish an IETF document. The second comment is that it is 
unclear what the formal standing of the potential new RFC would be. 
Would it update or supersede the IEEE 802.21 specification that has 
already been published? And if not, what would the purpose of the RFC 
be? Who has the change control on the schema?

Given this there seems to be two possible paths forward:

1. The resulting specification (including corrections) is taken back to 
the IEEE process and published as a revision of the earlier 802.21 
schema standard. No RFC is published.

2. The RFC is published from the IETF, but with a note that clarifies 
(a) who has the change control of this specification and (b) formal 
standing of the new RFC wrt. the IEEE standard. If the formal standing 
is an update of the existing standard then we may also need a formal 
confirmation of this fact from the appropriate body in IEEE that has the 
ability to approve IEEE standards. If my understanding is correct then 
this may be the 802 group.

The IESG prefers the first option, but we can also talk about the second 
one. We would like to hear what the 802.21 chairs and document authors 
think about these options.

Jari Arkko for the IESG