IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission

graham.travers at graham.travers at
Mon Nov 3 18:19:01 CET 2003


How are you interpreting "has to" ?  Are you implying that IP can't run without MPLS (for example) ?


	Graham Travers

	International Standards Manager
	BT Exact

	e-mail:   graham.travers at
	tel:      +44(0) 1359 235086
	mobile:   +44(0) 7808 502536
	fax:      +44(0) 1359 235087

	HWB279, PO Box 200,London, N18 1ZF, UK

	BTexact Technologies is a trademark of British Telecommunications plc
	Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
	Registered in England no. 1800000

	This electronic message contains information from British Telecommunications plc which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above) immediately.

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott W Brim [mailto:swb at]
Sent: 29 October 2003 16:09
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand; problem-statement at
Subject: Re: IESG proposed statement on the IETF mission

On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 04:13:20PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
> The IETF covers a wide range of technical areas and it is impossible
> to set fully objective boundaries that allow an algorithmic answer to
> the question whether a particular item is within the IETF's technical
> scope. However, it can be stated that IETF work items are always
> concerned with either the Internet Protocol layer itself (Layer 3 in
> the ISO/OSI Reference Model), with its management and routing, with
> transport protocols (Layer 4) that may seriously impact the correct
> functioning of the IP layer, or with direct uses of the transport
> layer that provide generic services. Security mechanisms for all of
> the above are also in scope.
> Transmission technologies below Layer 3, and upper layer protocols
> that are not generic in nature, are generally out of scope. Also,
> tightly integrated suites of generic upper layer protocols (for
> example, the Web Services protocols) may be more appropriately
> specified by a dedicated standards body.

Corollary: Anything that has to run everywhere IP runs.  This pulls in
protocols which need to establish state at every IP hop, not just
waypoints (e.g. application proxies).  The one that's on my mind is

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list