The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt
Hi, The conversation that's being stimulated from the draft gets to the crux of the issue I see with its current wording. The draft is being interpreted as simply describing the present IETF mode of operation. I didn't think that was supposed to be the intent. Eve -----Original Message----- From: Eric Rosen [mailto:erosen@cisco.com] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 1:23 PM To: Loa Andersson Cc: Kireeti Kompella; Stephen Trowbridge; ccamp@ops.ietf.org; mpls@UU.NET Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-andersson-mpls-g-chng-proc-00.txt It seems to me that Loa's document simply describes how the IETF works. As such, I'm not sure it is even necessary. True, many people have noticed that the IETF is free to ignore the work of other standard organizations. True, the fact that a particular proposal is made by another standards organization does not even give the proposal any special weight in the IETF. I think these are good things, and the IETF should not make any changes in this respect. Hence I don't think Loa's draft (if it needs to exist) needs to change. Certainly the fact that some position is articulated in a "liaison statement" should not give it any special weight. The fact that some position is supported by "a threshold number of vendors and SPs" shouldn't give it any special weight either. |
|