Subject: RE: [NSIS] RE: QOSM IANA Status / NSIS Extensibility Doc on QOSMs

From: "Hancock, Robert" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 10:18:03 -0000

a teeny question (also in fact a question on the extensibility draft):

	 (ii) "IETF Action" what exactly is that? I've recently been
studying the IANA RFC 2434 and this is not defined there. Or is this
vague on purpose / defined elsewhere?

		Along the same lines, when updating the QSPEC IANA
section we were wondering what kind of IETF action is required for
defining new QOSMs / QOSM IDs: Will the QOSM IDs be informational RFCs
(=> "specification required" or "IETF Consensus" in IANA language !?) or
standards track (=> "standards action" in IANA language)? We are
currently assuming it is just "specification required" and updated the
QSPEC ID accordingly. Note this implies that new  _optional_ QSPEC
parameters will receive this same IANA treatment because they can be
defined by QOSMs. (New _mandatory_ QSPEC parameters would require
standards action, because they "MUST be interpreted" by all QNEs)

		My proposal for new text in the NSIS Ext ID is "New QoS
Models can be defined by providing a specification. A new QoS Model
would define the QoS parameters to be carried in the QSPEC. For details
see [QSPEC ID]". 

		 IETF action means: 

		<t>Extensions subject to "IETF Action" require either a
Standards Track   RFC, Experimental RFC or an Information RFC.</t>  

a teeny question: does that include an individual submission to the
RFC-Editor (which is of course nothing to do with the IETF...) ? "IETF
Consensus" [from 2434] seems a closer match to the intention.

r.

_______________________________________________
nsis mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 12:21:09 +0200

>  a teeny question: does that include an individual submission to the
RFC-Editor (which is of course nothing to do with the IETF...) ?  
>  "IETF Consensus" [from 2434] seems a closer match to the intention. 
 
I think that would be OK. The RFC editor always checks with the IESG
before approving an RFC as an RFC Editor submission.
 
John