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