The MPLS WG Archive

[Loa Andersson <loa@pi.se>]

this might be a candidate for the understatement of the month :)

Scott Bradner wrote:

>>.Good point.  CCAMP has received liaison statements in the past and
>>we haven't really responded to them -
>>    
>>
>
>this was pointed out to me (again) this week :-)
>
>we (the IETF) need to work out a reliable way to respond to liaison
>statements
>
>Scott
>
My understanding of where we are now in this discussion it could be 
summarized as:

We need to document the (g)mpls-change process, most of this is in the
current draft. The concerns I've seen so far is on how and what could be 
accepted as
input to the process, that should be easily solvable.

We need to doucment the ietf way of responding to liasions.

It is my immediate reaction that this do not really belong in the same
document, if for no other reasons, at least for practical reasons. If 
there is a
strong motive to put them in the same document, I can live with that.

It has been pointed out that - inter-organization information, requests, 
suggestions
and communications are handled different by differnt organisations.

I think we should view the (g)mpls change process as IETF internal, and 
that we need
to add some text to explain how and when external documents sent to the 
ietf in
other format than IDs could and should be taken into the (g)mpls change 
process.

I will update the draft with some text addressing this, the darft won't 
be possible
to re-publish until after the IETF in SF, however we have allocated time 
on the ccamp
and mpls working group agendas for Ron to discuss the issues with this 
draft. I will
have this text ready in good time before this presentation.

/Loa