The MPLS WG Archive

["David Allan" <dallan@nortelnetworks.com>]

Title: RE: Draft MPLS minutes

Guys:

1) I'm not aware of anywhere where the minutes are subsequently annotated to provide a critique of a speakers statements. Which is what started this thread. So lets drop that turd.

2) "Rough consensus" and running code seems to suggest that the WG does have some input into WG documents. So lets drop that one as well.

cheers
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shahram Davari [mailto:Shahram_Davari@pmc-sierra.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 2:10 PM
> To: 'erosen@cisco.com'
> Cc: mpls@UU.NET
> Subject: RE: Draft MPLS minutes
>
>
>
> >Your  citation from  RFC 3160  does not  seem to  imply
> >anywhere  that every
> >change to a WG draft must  be approved by consensus.
>
> It says:
>
> "     2. Receive comments on the draft
>       3. Edit your draft based on the comments"
>
> It never says edit the draft as the author(s) wish.
>
>
> >In fact,
> >your citation
> >doesn't  even mention  consensus.
>
> True, but I think that is common sense that when a draft is a
> WG document, the author(s) should not change it based on their own
> opinion only. Otherwise what would be the difference between
> a WG draft and a personal draft?
>
> >Not to  mention  that RFC
> >3160 does  not
> >specify the standards process anyway.
>
> So? we are talking about WG drafts.
>
> -Shahram
>
>