The MPLS WG Archive

[Kireeti Kompella <kireeti@juniper.net>]

Hi Deborah,

On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Brungard, Deborah A, ALABS wrote:

> The draft does not include any reference to liaisons (inputs from other
> standards groups). Will there be a separate process for liaisons or
> this draft will be extended to include? It would be useful (especially
> for other standards groups) to have clarification on how liaisons are
> input to a WG, generation of responses, and process required to
> coordinate work/initiate work within a working group in relation to
> other standards groups.

Good point.  CCAMP has received liaison statements in the past and
we haven't really responded to them -- in fact, I am not even sure
that there is a written process to handle liaison statements, nor a
well defined return channel.

Since this draft is about writing down processes, we should (a) figure
out how liaisons are handled; and (b) write that down as well.

Ron and I will have a pow-wow with the ADs and figure this out.

> On section 2.2.2 problem statement review, and in other steps where
> decisions are taken, it would help to clarify if say that the decision
> (e.g., 'no action') plus the basis for the decision be posted to the
> Area/WG mailing list within a specified time period.

Another good idea -- in line with the "new IETF with better visibility
and accountability" thrust.

Kireeti.