The MPLS WG Archive

[Curtis Villamizar <curtis@fictitious.org>]

In message <3E5F993C.27CFAB0D@lucent.com>, Stephen Trowbridge writes:
> Curtis,
> I have no problem to seperate the liaison process from the internal process.
> In fact, a good liaison process is needed that would have much broader
> applicability than (G)MPLS protocols.
> 
> However, I do disagree that we can go forward on one with out the other.
> As Bala's flowchart shows, the effect of applying this draft to internally
> and externally initated work alike is to give the externally initiated
> work a fast track to the trash. Without the liaison process, this draft
> seems to make what is already a bad problem with how we deal with input
> from other SDOs even worse.
> Regards,
> Steve
> 
> Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> > 
> > In message <3E5F8A25.8030201@pi.se>, Loa Andersson writes:
> > >
> > > - I don't think it is agood idea to describe the two process in the same
> > >   document. the chnage-process is for our internal use, the liasion proce
> ss
> > >   is for our commuinication with other SDOs
> > 
> > If we can agree on this, then we can move forward with your document.
> > 
> > Curtis


Steve,

Loa's draft documents IETF process that has pretty much been put into
place under the guidance of the IESG to keep the level of junk down to
a minimum and insure that extensions both address real needs and their
deployment is feasible.  The sooner participants in outside SDOs
recognize this, the better for them.

Earlier you stated, that if an outside SDO specified an extension and
you expect the IETF to simply accept that.  It may turn out that the
IETF has documented their process in rfc2026 and clarified it here and
you simply have to accept that.  :-)

Curtis